EPA-540/1-74-001
Production, Distribution, Use
and
Environmental Impact Potential
of Selected Pesticides
Office of Pesticide Programs
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT POTENTIAL OF SELECTED PESTICIDES *
by
Rosmarie von Rumker
Edward W. Lawless
Alfred F. Meiners
with
KathrynA. Lawrence
Gary L. Kelso
Freda Horay
For
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs
Charles D. Reese, Project Officer
Jay Turim, Project Officer
Jeff Kempter, Project Member
I!
For
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place
Washington, D.C. 20006
J. C. Davies, III, Project Officer
Warren Muir, Project Officer
EPA 540/1-74-001
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Pesticide
Programs of the Environmental Protection Agency and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, or
does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
PREFACE
This report presents the results of a study conducted by Midwest
Research Institute and RvR Consultants under Contract No. EQC-311 from
the Council on Environmental Quality with the support of the Environmental
Protection Agency. The project staff for Midwest Research Institute (MRI
Project No. 3749-C) consisted of Dr. Edward W. Lawless, Project Leader,
Dr. Alfred F. Meiners, Ms. Kathryn Lawrence and Mr. Gary L. Kelso. The
project staff for RvR Consultants (RvR Project No. 29, under subcontract
to MRI) consisted of Dr. Rosmarie von RUmker, Project Leader, and
Mrs. Freda Horay.
Dr. Alvin Hylton, Mr. Charles Mumma and Mr. Howard Gadberry of the
MRI staff assisted the project team. Dr. Dale Young, Mr. James L. Sullens,
Mr. Roland Rhodes, Mr. Charles A. Patterson and Mr. William Bell were
utilized as consultants on the program. The assistance of the many
authorities on pesticide manufacture, use, and impact, who contributed
their time and helpful information to this study, is gratefully acknowl-
edged, and our special thanks goes to Mr. William Wymer and the Federal
Working Group on Pest Management for compiling the data on pesticide use
by the federal government.
Project Officers for the CEQ have been Dr. J. C. Davies, III, and
Dr. Warren Muir, and Mr. Charles Reese, Dr. Jay Turim and Mr. Ted Breton
were advisors for the EPA.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITU'
i. Hubbaro, Director
Physical Sciences Divisibn
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract xiii
I. Introduction 1
A. Objectives of the Study 1
B. The Study Approach 2
II. Conclusions 4
III. Pesticide Production, Imports, Exports, and Domestic
Supplies 9
A. Introduction 9
B. The USDA "Pesticide Review" 9
C. Organic Pesticides 9
D. Inorganic Pesticides 16
E. Pesticide Imports 16
F. Pesticide Exports 17
G. Domestic Supplies of. Pesticides 18
H. Estimated Production, Imports, Exports and Uses of
the Intensive-Study Pesticides 21
IV. Agricultural Uses of Pesticides 22
A. Introduction 22
B. The USDA Farm Pesticide Use Reports 26
C. Survey of the Federal/State Cooperative Extension
Service 28
D. Survey of the EPA Community Pesticide Studies
Projects 30
E. Survey of Pesticide Manufacturers 31
F. Pesticide Data from Other Sources 32
V. Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Uses of
Pesticides 33
A. Types of Pest Control Problems. 33
B. Major Applications of Pesticides 35
C. Discussion of the Usage of the 25 Intensive-Study
Pesticides 62
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
VI. Use of Pesticides by Governmental Agencies 64
A. Introduction. 64
B. Federal Government Agencies 64
C. State Government Agencies 71
D. Municipal and Local Government Agencies 81
E. Governmental Use of Herbicides on Highways and in
Water Management 83
F. Summary of Governmental Pesticide Usage 86
VII. Environmental Impact Potential of Pesticides 91
A. Introduction 91
B. Mammalian Toxicity 91
C. Toxicity to Other Nontarget Organisms 95
D. Pesticide Residues in the Environment 96
E. Environmental Impact Potential of Pesticides by
Categories 100
VIII. Wasteful Pesticide Use Practices 106
A. Introduction 106
B. Application Losses 106
C. Overuse 109
D. Unnecessary Use 110
E. Other Wasteful Uses Ill
IX. Alternatives to Chemical Pescicides 113
A. Introduction 113
B. Cultural Methods 113
C. Physical and Mechanical Methods 114
D. Resistant Crop Varieties 114
E. Predators and Parasites 115
F. Insect Pathogens 115
G. Sterilization 116
H. Insect Growth Regulators 117
I. Pheromones 118
J. Antimetabolites and Antifeeding Agents 119
K. Integrated Pest Management 119
X. Case Studies of 25 Selected Pesticides 122
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Appendix A - Criteria for Selection of Pesticides for Intensive
Study 347
Appendix B - Pesticide Usage in Selected States 357
Appendix C - List of Federal/State Cooperative Extension Service
Officials, State Officials, and Other Experts
Contacted in the Survey Per Chapter IV,
Section C 387
Appendix D - List of U.S. Government Officials and Contractors
Who Contributed to Part of This Study. 395
Appendix E - List of Pesticide Industry Representatives Contacted
in the Survey Per Chapter IV, Section E 398
Appendix F - Copies of Correspondence on Surveys of Pesticide Use
by State and Municipal Agencies. . 410
References 421
Subject Index 430
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title
1 Sample Page of a Governmental Agency Report to FWGPM. ... 66
2 Use of Intensive-Study Insecticides by State Agencies. ... 78
3 Use of Intensive-Study Herbicides by State Agencies 79
4 Use of Intensive-Study Fungicides, Fumigants and Preserva-
tives by State Agencies 80
5 Cities Surveyed for Pesticide Usage 82
6 Foliar Insecticide Application: Typical Losses Between
Spray Nozzle and Site of Toxic Action 108
7 Production and Waste Schematic for Aldrin 127
8 Materials Flow Diagram for Aldrin, 1972 130
9 Production and Waste Schematic for Carbaryl 135
10 Materials Flow Diagram for Carbaryl, 1972 138
11 Production and Waste Schematic for Carbofuran 142
12 Materials Flow Diagram for Carbofuran, 1972 146
13 Production and Waste Schematic for Chlordane 151
14 Materials Flow Diagram for Chlordane, 1972 154
15 Production and Waste Schematic for Diazinon 159
16 Materials Flow Diagram for Diazinon 163
17 Production and Waste Schematic for Disulfoton 167
18 Materials Flow Diagram for Disulfoton 170
19 Production and Waste Schematic for Malathion ... 174
20 Materials Flow Diagram for Malathion 178
21 Production and Waste Schematic for Methyl Parathion 183
22 Materials Flow Diagram for Methyl Parathion 186
23 Materials Flow Diagram for Parathion, 1972 193
24 Production and Waste Schematic for Toxaphene 200
25 Materials Flow Diagram for Toxaphene, 1972 202
26 Production and Waste Schematic for Alachlor 207
27 Materials Flow Diagram for Alachlor, 1972 209
28 Production and Waste Schematic for Atrazine 212
29 Materials Flow Diagram for Atrazine, 1972 215
30 Production and Waste Schematic for Bromacil 220
31 Materials Flow Diagram for Bromacil, 1972 223
32 Production and Waste Schematic for 2,4-D 226
33 Materials Flow Diagram for 2,4-D, 1972 230
34 Production and Waste Schematic for Diuron 233
35 Materials Flow Diagram for Diuron, 1972 236
36 Production and Waste Schematic for MSMA 239
37 Materials Flow Diagram for MSMA, 1972 243
38 Production and Waste Schematic for Sodium Chlorate 249
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded)
Figure Title
39 Materials Flow Diagram for Sodium Chlorate, 1972 255
40 Production and Waste Schematic for Trifluralin 259
41 Materials Flow Diagram for Trifluralin, 1972 261
42 Production and Waste Schematic for Captan 265
43 Materials Flow Diagram for Captan, 1972 268
44 Coke Plants in the United States (1972) 278
45 Creosote Production in Plants in the U.S. (1972) 280
46 Wood Preserving Plants in the United States (1972) 282
47 Production and Waste Schematic for Creosote 283
48 Production and Waste Schematic for Wood Treatment
Processes 287
49 Materials Flow Diagram for Creosote, 1972 293
50 Production and Waste Schematic for Maneb 301
51 Materials Flow Diagram for Maneb, 1972 305
52 Production and Waste Schematic for Pentachlorophenol. . . . 309
53 Materials Flow Diagram for Pentachlorophenol 316
54 Production and Waste Schematic for p-Dichlorobenzene. . . . 322
55 Materials Flow Diagram for p-Dichlorobenzene 325
56 Production and Waste Schematic for Methyl Bromide 328
57 Materials Flow Diagram for Methyl Bromide, 1972 331
58 Production and Waste Schematic for Organotin Compounds. . . 336
59 Estimated Production and Use of Organotin Compounds .... 340
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title
I Production and Destination of 25 Selected Pesticides. . . . ,
II USDA Data on Pesticide Production in the United States
1967-1971
Ill U.S. Tariff Commission Totals on the Production of Synthetic
Organic Pesticides, 1971 and 1972
IV Production Vs Sales for Synthetic Organic Pesticides,
United States, 1962-1972
V U.S. DDT Production, Export and "Domestic Disappearance,"
1965-1970
VI Estimated Production, Imports, Exports and Domestic Supplies
of Selected Pesticides by Categories, 1972
VII USDA Estimates of Percentages of Pesticides Used by Farmers
in the United States, in 1966 and 1971
VIII Major Agricultural Uses of Intensive-Study Pesticides by
Crop and Type
IX Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Use of Herbicides
for General Maintenance of Grounds
X Wooden Materials Treated in the United States, by Product
and Preservative, 1972
XI Wood Preservatives Used (1972)
XII Estimated Herbicide Use by Railroads
XIII Estimated Herbicide Use by Utilities
XIV Relative Importance of Insecticides Used Indoors
XV Estimated Insecticide Use by PCO'S and Tree Sprayers in
Kansas, 1972
XVI Estimated Quantities of Insecticides Used by Custom Applica-
tors in Kansas in 1972
XVII Estimated Total Water Management Herbicide Use
XVIII Forestry Statistics by State, 1964
XIX Pesticide Use in the Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Sector
XX Typical Pesticide Uses by Governmental Agencies
XXI Sample Pesticide Summary from FWGPM
XXII Pesticide Usages Proposed by Federal Government Agencies,
1972
XXIII Amounts of Major Pesticides Used by Individual Federal
Government Agencies
XXIV Usage of 25 Intensive-Study Pesticides Reported by State
Government Agencies
ix
-------
Table
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Title
XXV Usage of 25 Intensive-Study Pesticides Reported by
Municipal Government Agencies 84
XXVI Estimated Total Highway Herbicide Use 87
XXVII Domestic Use of 25 Intensive-Study Pesticides by Governmental
Agencies 88
XXVIII Quantities of Other Major Pesticides Used by Government
Agencies 90
XXIX Mammalian Toxicity Categories of Pesticides 93
XXX Wildlife Toxicity Categories of Pesticides 94
XXXI Production of the Aldrin-Toxaphene Group, 1963-1972 197
XXXII Coal Tar Producers in the United States on December 31, 1972 .272
XXXIII Creosote Production Plants in the U.S. 279
XXXIV Products from the Carbonization of 1 Ton of Coal 281
XXXV Typical Fractions Taken in Continuous Tar Distillation . . . .284
XXXVI Wood Products Treated With Creosote in the United States . . .291
XXXVII Preserved Wood Products and Their Substitutes 294
XXXVIII Acute Toxicity Data for Avian Species and Fish Species for
Creosote-Coal Tar Solution (60/40) and Several Insecti-
cides 297
XXXIX U.S. Consumption of Pentachlorophenol 313
XL Industrial/Commercial Use Distribution for Pentachlorophenol .313
XLI Typical Characteristics of Wastewater From a Wood Preserva-
tion Plant Using Pentachlorophenol 314
XLII Comparative Evaluation of Toxicological Data Obtained on
Pentachlorophenol Samples 319
XLIII Estimated U.S. Uses of Selected Organotin Pesticides 341
A-I Pesticide Priority Rating 349
A-II Summary of Ratings 355
A-III Pesticides Recommended for Study 356
B-I Pesticide Usage in Arizona, 1972 359
B-II Pesticide Usage in California--Quantities Reported for 1972. .361
B-III Report of Persistent Pesticides Sold in Florida, 6 April -
31 December 1972 365
B-IV Estimated Pesticide Consumption in the Structural Pest Con-
trol Industry in Hawaii, 1972 366
B-V Pesticide Usage for Crops, Canyon County, Idaho-1972 367
B-VI Agricultural Pesticide Usage in Illinois, 1972 369
B-VII Agricultural Usage of Pesticides in Indiana, 1970 370
B-VIII 1973 Rural Insecticide and Herbicide Usage, 160 Farmers-
Johnson County, Iowa 371
x
-------
Table
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded)
Title
B-IX Estimated Pounds and Gallons of Commercial Formulations of
Six Restricted Pesticides Permitted for Sale in Maryland
as of March 15, 1971 372
B-X Pesticide Sales Reported by Licensed Dealers in Michigan
for the Year 1972 373
B-XI Agricultural Usage of Pesticides in Michigan, 1970 374
B-XII Agricultural Pesticide Usage in Minnesota, 1972 375
B-XIII Insecticide Usage in Mississippi, 1972 376
B-XIV Estimated Pesticide Usage on All Major Crops in Washington,
Bolivar, and Sunflower Counties, Mississippi 377
B-XV Herbicide Usage by Montana County Weed Districts for
Perennial Weed Control, 1972 380
B-XVI South Carolina Pesticide Usage, 1970 381
B-XVII Principal Cotton Insecticides and Estimated Amounts Used in
the Rio Grande Valley, Texas - 1972 383
B-XVIII Estimates of Pesticide Usage in Utah, 1971 384
B-XIX Agricultural Usage of Pesticides in Wisconsin, 1970 386
-------
ABSTRACT
The production, distribution, use patterns and potential for
environmental impacts of pesticides are described, with emphasis on 25 im-
portant pesticides that were selected by applying a priority rating system
to 125 major pesticides. The domestic consumption of these 25 intensive-
study products was estimated by analyses of data from several complementary
sources, including information on the supply of each material and on each
of its important uses. Government statistics on pesticide production,
import and export were analyzed and combined with information from other
published sources, personal contacts and a study of use practices (as dis-
cussed below) to estimate the total domestic use of each of the 25. The
proportions of these uses were estimated for each of six geographical
regions and four major user categories, i.e., the agricultural, industrial/
commercial/institutional, governmental agencies, and home and garden sectors.
Data from federal,' state and other sources on the domestic agri-
cultural use of pesticides were analyzed in depth, and efforts were made to
resolve significant information gaps and discrepancies. The 25 intensive-
study pesticides were analyzed according to use by crop and target pest
before making final estimates of total use by geographical region. A broad
study was made of the use of pesticides in the industrial, commercial and
institutional sectors. The major pesticide users were characterized by type
of organization, their pest problems, and the quantities of pesticides
utilized. The total amounts of the 25 intensive-study pesticides used in
these sectors and their use by geographical regions were then estimated.
A study of the use of pesticides by government agencies employed data from
two sources. The Federal Working Group on Pest Management supplied data on
the proposed use of individual pesticides by specific facilities; the total
quantity of each pesticide used by all federal agencies and the quantities
of major pesticides used by each agency were then calculated or estimated.
Original questionnaires on the use of pesticides by governmental agencies
were sent to purchasing agents in the 48 contiguous states and 50 selected
cities. Based on the data received, the total use of the 25 intensive-study
products by state and city agencies was estimated by extrapolations based
on population. Finally, estimates were made for the total use of 25 pesti-
cides by all agencies of government.
A study of pesticide use in the home and garden sector was not
a goal of original research on the project. Where necessary to complete
the 25 case studies, amounts of pesticides used in this sector were derived
by difference between production and other uses and by a general knowledge
of the field.
The 25 intensive-study pesticides were as follows: Insecticides -
aldrin, carbaryl, carbofuran, chlordane, diazinon disulfoton, malathion,
methyl parathion, parathion, toxaphene; Herbicides - alachlor, atrazine,
xii
-------
bromacil, 2,4-D, diuron, MSMA, sodium chlorate trifluralin; Fungicides
and Wood Preservatives - captan, creosote, nameb, and pentachlorophenol;
Fumigants - methyl bromide, and dichlorobenzene; and Special Category -
organotin compounds.
The U.S. production of these 25 pesticides was 2.07 billion
pounds of active ingredient. However, one pesticide, creosote (0.99 bil-
lion pounds), accounted for almost half of this total. Domestic consump-
tion was 1.54 billion pounds total .(0.56 billion pounds of pesticides ex-
cluding creosote).
The distribution by user category for these 25 pesticides was:
industrial/commercial/institutional, 71% (excluding creosote, 23%); govern-
mental, 1% (excluding creosote, 2%); home and garden, 5% (excluding creosote,
12%); and agricultural, 23% (excluding creosote, 63%).
Information on environmental impact potential, wasteful use
practices, and alternative methods of pest control are discussed in general
and in particular for each of the intensive-study pesticides.
xiii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Pesticides constitute an important aspect of modern life. They
make important contributions to the production of food and fiber, the pre-
servation of structures and materials, and the control of species that
carry disease, are poisonous, or are obnoxious to humans. But they have
caused serious concern that their widespread use can cause adverse effects
on the environment and on human health. The evaluation of the overall
environmental impact of pesticides is extremely difficult, however, because
of the large number of different pesticidal chemicals that are used, the
wide variations in their properties and use patterns, and the inadequacy
of the available data on quantities of pesticides produced and amounts used
in particular applications or geographical regions.
The Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental
Protection Agency have been very interested in developing the general and
specific information needed to make this evaluation. EPA, through its
Pesticide Study Series, has supported investigations of the manufacture and
production of pesticides,—' and their use in various specific applications
and geographical regions,Al£/ and to summarize current research programs,—'
and the results of all research to date—' on the effects of pesticides in
the aquatic environment. CEQ has supported a search for general environ-
mental indicators for pesticides,11' and has pointed out—' that a "mate-
rials balance" approach to pesticides would be most helpful in understanding
their impacts. CEQ has noted, however, that more systematic and comprehen-
sive data are needed on the production, supply, movement and application
of pesticides as well as on their levels throughout the environment. The
Congressional Reference Service has also informed the Congress directly of
this need.11' This study will help in part to fill that need.
A. Objectives of the Study
The long-range goal of this study has been to help develop an
overview of the environmental impacts of the approximately 250 commercially
important pesticides that are produced or used in the United States.
Objectives have been: (a) to develop fundamental data on the production
of pesticides; (b) to develop data on the United States consumption of
pesticides in three of the four major user classifications—agricultural;
industrial, commercial and institutional; and governmental;* (c) to
identify the factors that may contribute to adverse environmental impacts;
A detailed study of a fourth major area, the home and garden use of pesti-
cides, was specifically excluded from the present program by funding
limitations.
-------
(d) to develop detailed information on the production, distribution, use
and environmental impact potentials of a number of selected pesticides
that would be representative of pesticides in general; arid (e) to analyze
and summarize all of this information in terms of the long-range goal.
B. The Study Approach
The approach centered on the development of detailed information
on selected "intensive-study" pesticides, but information was developed
concurrently on the production, use, and impacts of pesticides in general.
The investigation has seven tasks as follows:
1. Establish a priority system to select pesticides of major
interest to CEQ/EPA and select ~ 25 pesticides for systematic study. The
25 selected intensive-study pesticides are listed on p. 3 and details of
the selection procedure are given in Appendix A.
2. Compile information on the production of all pesticides and
on the manufacture, formulation and distribution of the intensive-study
pesticides (including pollution control technology).
3. Compile an inventory and analysis of the agricultural uses
of pesticides, with emphasis on the intensive-study pesticides.
4. Compile an inventory and analysis of the industrial, commer-
cial and institutional uses of pesticides, with emphasis on the intensive-
study pesticides.
5. Compile an inventory and analysis of use oi: pesticides by
federal, state and local governmental agencies, with emphasis on the
intensive-study pesticides.
6. Develop materials-flow diagrams for each of the intensive- /
study pesticides which illustrate geographically the following movements
of materials: (a) raw materials to the pesticide manufacturing site,
(b) by-products and wastes into the environment, and (c) the active in-
gredient to the various parts of the country.
7. Summarize actual and potential impacts on man and on the
environment for each of the intensive-study pesticides, and analyze
available and practical chemical and nonchemical alternatives. Extend
these results to pesticides in general.
A "case study" was then prepared for each of the 25 intensive-
study pesticides as presented in Chapter X, and other results and con-
clusions of the investigation were summarized, as presented in Chapters
III to IX of this report.
-------
LIST OF 25 INTENSIVE-STUDY PESTICIDES
Insecticides Herbicides
Aldrin Alachlor
Carbaryl Atrazine
Carbofuran Bromacil
Chlordane^/ 2,4-D
Diazinon Diuron
Disulfoton MSMA
Malathion Sodium Chlorate^'
Methyl Parathion Trifluralin
Parathion
Toxaphene Fumigants
Fungicides and Wood Preservatives p-DichlorobenzeneS/
Methyl Bromide®/
Captan
Creosote
Maneb
Pentachlorophenol£'
Special Category
Organotin Compounds
a/ Includes use as termite treatment of wood structures.
b_/ Includes mixtures with borates.
cj Includes herbicidal use.
d/ Includes lavatory-space deodorant uses.
je/ Includes soil sterilization for weeds and insects and structural
termite treatment.
-------
II. CONCLUSIONS
Pesticides make many important contributions to the quality of modern
life by aiding in the production of food and fiber, by helping prevent the
deterioration of structures, by controlling unwanted or hazardous vegetative
growth and disease-carrying or obnoxious organisms, and by providing more
aesthetically pleasing vistas. The widespread use of pesticides has, how-
ever, brought serious concern that they may cause damage to the environment
and to humans. The extent of these potential adverse impacts are difficult
to evaluate because data on the production, distribution and use of pesti-
cides are available only in a very incomplete and inadquate form. A goal
of this program has been to help develop information of this kind and to
present it in a form that will be useful in evaluating the overall effects
of the present manner of using pesticides and of the optional alternative
methods. The study approach has been to analyze available information and
data on (a) the production, import and export of all pesticides; and (b)
their usage in the agricultural sector, in the industrial/commercial/in-
stitutional sector, and by agencies of federal, state and local government.
Detailed case studies were then made of the production, distribution and
use patterns of 25 major pesticides that had been systematically selected
to be representative of pesticides in general.
Some general and specific conclusions and recommendations of the
study are as follows:
. Governmental authorities that are responsible for regulation
of the environmental aspects of pesticides and persons involved in research
on these materials have quite inadequate data available on their production,
distribution and use. Published data of the U.S. TarifE Commission, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census are incomplete,
frequently incongruous, and at. times actually misleading. The reasons for
these weaknesses arise in part from existing governmental regulations which
limit the disclosure of production data given to the government by industry,
in part from inadequate record keeping on production and sales, and--in no
small way--from the use of older, limited definitions for the word "pesticide"
that are inadequate in the present regulatory and environmental contexts.
EPA should be authorized to collect from the manufacturers
reliable data on the annual domestic production and consumption of all
pesticides. In addition EPA should develop—to the degree possible--
information on the use of all important pesticides according to geographi-
cal region (drainage basins, or governmental unit). In lieu of these
authoritative statistics, EPA should annually update and publish the best
available estimates of the production of all pesticides. These estimates
should specify the amount of each pesticide used, and give totals according
to chemical class as well as for the pesticide class. Materials flow
-------
information--of the type included in this report--should be published
periodically for all major pesticides.
The present system of data collection and reporting focuses
primarily on those synthetic organic chemicals that are used for agricultural
purposes. It tends to obscure the substantial use of other synthetic organics
that have major nonpesticidal applications, many inorganic pesticides, and
pesticides that are used in the industrial/commercial areas. The use of
pesticides in the industrial/commercial sector is greater than is generally
assumed, but agricultural applications are the major consumers of the syn-
thetic organics.
By far the most important pesticide in terms of the amount used
and economic value of this use is creosote, which is used to prevent destruc-
tion of wood products by fungi, termites and other pests. Almost as much
creosote is used for this purpose annually in the U.S. as the domestic produc-
tion of all of the synthetic organic pesticides combined. Creosote has been
used for this purpose for over 70 years without exhibiting obvious adverse
impacts on man or the environment; although studies of its effect have in-
creased recently, economically and environmentally feasible alternatives
for its complete use are not available.
Based on the Tariff Commission's data for the synthetic organic
pesticides, herbicides continue to be the fastest growing category in terms
of amounts used. The alternatives to herbicide use continue to remain pri-
marily the older labor- or energy-intensive methods and few new biologi-
cal plant-control methods appear on the horizon. Among the eight intensive-
study herbicides (which includes one inorganic) industrial/commercial use
accounted for 16.4% and agriculture 78.4% of the total. The next largest
group among the synthetic organics is the insecticides, according to Tariff
Commission data (which includes some but not nearly all fumigants). The
insecticides are used primarily in agriculture, but with substantial use in
both the home and garden area, the industrial/commercial area, and in some
cases for public health. This is the1 one class of pesticides for which
nonchemical substitutes appear to be promising, but few economically com-
petitive products or methods are currently available to the users. Fungi-
cides continue to show little overall growth and little indication is seen
that biological methods or integrated pest management methods will replace
the current applications of fungicidal chemicals--which are largely used
in preventive modes.
The insecticides as a group have the highest acute mammalian
toxicities (followed by fungicides and herbicides). They probably have
also the greatest potential for adverse environmental impacts, although
the wide-scale use of selective herbicides can have long-range consequences
on ecosystems. The use of persistent insecticides where they are not es-
sential has decreased somewhat in recent years--particularly with the
-------
decreased use of DDT--but in some cases they have been replaced by more
toxic materials that require more care in their use, or by materials whose
environmental effects are less well known.
The 25 pesticides and a summary of this analyssis of their produc-
tion and use are shown in Table I. The individual case studies contain
additional information on production processes and formulation, properties,
geographical distribution, environmental impacts, and alternative methods
of control for each of the 25 pesticides. For many of these pesticides--
including some that have been used in large volume for several years--the
information that is available on routes and rates of degradation and effects
on nontarget organisms (especially the lower aquatic and terrestrial species)
is surprisingly limited. Even less is known about the nature, toxicity and
persistence of the environmental degradation products or metabolites of many
of these pesticides.
-------
TABLE I
PRODUCTION AND DESTINATION OF 25 SELECTED PESTICIDES (Millions of Pounds AI)
U.S.
Production
Insecticides
Aldrin
Carbaryl-'
Carbofuran
ChlordaneV
Diazinonk/
Diaulfoton
MalathionS/
Methyl Parathion
Parathion
Toxaphene
Subtotal-^
7. U.S. use
Herbicides
Alachlor
Atrazine
Bromacll-'
2,4-nSi/
Diuronfe/
MSMA^'
Sodium Chlorate
Trifluralin
Sub tot a 1-
7. U.S. use
Fungicides and
13.0
53.0
6.0
20.0
12.0
5.0
24.0
51.1
14.0
76.0
274.1
24.0
95.0
4.0
55.0
6.5
24.0
400.0
21.0
629.5
Imports
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
1.1
Small
0
1.3
0
Negligible
0
Negligible
0.7
Negligible
30.0
0
30.7
lr,*,,<,fr-1,-\/ Hnn» »nrf Agri- Geographical Region?/
Exports U.S. Use Commercial Government Garden cultural NE SE NC SC NW SW
0.3 12.7 1.7 Small Small 11.0 0.3 0.7 11.0 0.5 0.1 0.1
28.0 25.0 1.0 1.5 3.5 19.0 2.0 7.9 4.8 3.9 0.9 2.0
1.0 5.0 Small Small Small 5.0 0.1 0.1 4.4 0.2 0.2
5.0 15.0 6.5 0.5 5.0 3.0 1.7 1.8 3.4 1.6 0.4 1.1
5.0 7.0 1.2 0.8 2.0 3.0 0.4 0.8 2.1 0.6 1.1
Negligible 5.0 Small Small 0.1 4.9 0.02 0.32 1.02 2.42 1.22
8.0 16.2 4.0 2.2 5.0 5.0 1.1 3.5 2.5 1.8 1.0 1.3
12.5 39.7 Small Small Small 39.7 Negligible 5.0 0.1 31.0 0.7 2.9
4.0 10.0 Small Small Small 9.9 0.4 1.4 1.8 3.5 2.9
18.0 58.0 1.0 Small Small 57.0 0.2 20.2 1.2 31.7 4.7
81.8 193.6 15.4 5,0 15.6 157.5 6.22 41.72 32.32 77.22 18.82
87. 2.67. 8.17. 81.37. 3.2% 21.57. 16.7% 39.9% 9.7%
3.0 21.0 Negligible Negligible Negligible 21.0 1.5 0.8 17.4 0.8 0.5
20.0 75.0 1.7 0.3 1.0 72.0 2.5 5.5 57.3 7.7 2.0
1.0 3.0 2.3 0.3 0 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.6
7.0 48.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 36.0 2.0 4.1 21.1 7.0 7.8 3.0
0.5 6.7 3.8 0.4 Negligible 2.5 0.4 1.0 0.6 2.1 0.5 1.7
5.0 19.0 4.0 1.0 1.5 12.5 0.4 2.5 1.4 11.6 0.7 0.9
Negligible 35. 0£/ 19.0 1.0 Negligible 15.0 1.8 4.0 3.6 13.8 2.1 9.7
4.0 17.0 Small Negligible Small 16.8 0.4 2.3 6.5 6.2 1.6
40.5 224.7 36.8 6.0 5.5 176.2 9.2 20.7 108.3 50.0 31.3
16.4% 2.77. 2.47. 78.47. 4.17. 9.2% 48.2% 22.3% 13.8%
Wood Preservatives
Captan3-/
Creosote
Manebl/
Pentachlorophenol
Subtotal 1
(Subtotal
minus creosote)
7. U.S. use
(7, U.S . use minus
creosote)
17.0
990.0
12.0
49.7
,068.7
(78.7)
Negligible
160.0
0.1
0
160.1
(0.1)
1.0 16.0 Negligible Negligible 6.0 10.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 0.5 2.0
0 972-' 970.0 Negligible Negligible 2.0 165.5 145.3 300.6 185.3 90.15 85.15
4.5 7.6 Negligible Negligible 1.6 6.0 1.8 1.5 1.5 0.3 0.9
0.7 49.0 47.5 Negligible 1.5 Negligible 11.0 7.5 13.5 7.5 8 0
6.2 1,044.6 1,017.5 - 9.1 18.0 181.8 156.3 317.6 193.6 186.2
(6.2) (72.6) (47.5) - (9.1) (16) (16.3) (11.0) (17.0) (8.3) (10.9)
97.47. - 0.97. 1.7% 17.4% 157- 30.4''- 18.5"- 17.8%
(65.4%) - (12.5%) (22. 0%) (22.5%) (15. 2"') (23.4%1 (11.4%) (15%)
-------
TABLE I (Concluded)
U.S.
Production Imports Exports U.S. Use
Fumtgants
Methyl Bromide 25.
p-Dichlorobenzene 72 .
Subtotal 97 .
X U.S. use
Tin Compounds^ 1.
7. U.S. use
Totals: 2,071.
7. Total U.S. use
Totals - excluding
creosote 1,081.
7. Total U.S. use
excluding creosote
0 Negligible 2.0 23.0
0 0 10.0 55. Q£/
0 - 12.0 78.0
8 Negligible 0.35 1.45
1 192.1 140.85 1,542.35
1 32.1 140.85 570.35
Industrial/
Commercial
14.0
14.0
28.0
35 . 97.
0.8
55.27.
1,098.5
717.
128.5
237.
Government
Negligible
2.0
2.0
2.67.
-
13
17.
13
27.
Home and
Garden
Negligible
39.0
39.0
507.
-
69.2
57.
69.2
127.
Agri-
cultural
9.0
Negligible
9.0
11.57.
0.65
44.87.
361.35
237.
359.35
637.
Geographical
M
1.4
14.7
16.1
20.67,
0.23
15.87.
213.55
13 . 87.
48.05
8.47.
SE
5.2
9.3
14.5
18.67.
0.31
21.47.
233.53
15 . 17.
88.23
15.57.
NC
6.3
14.4
20.7
26.57.
0.28
19.37.
479.20
31.17,
178.60
31.37.
Region^
SC
3.4
9.3
12.7
16 . 37.
0.30
20.77.
333.82
2 1 . 67.
148.52
26.07.
NW
1.0
2.0
14
17
0
22
250
16
73.
13
sw
5.7
5.3
0
97;
33
87,
65
27,
35
27,
oo
a/ See pp. 123-125 for states included in each region. Totals for NW and SW were not estimated separately for some
products.
b/ Small amounts of some uses are not included in regional totals.
£/ Total domestic Na Chlorate use is 430 million pounds AI of which only 35 million pounds AI is pesticide use.
d_/ Regional figures are for agricultural use only.
el Includes only wood preservation use; 178 million pounds AI is burned as fuel.
f_/ Includes moth control and lavatory-space deodorant purposes only.
£/ Includes triphenyltin hydroxide (Du-Ter®), tricyclohexyltin hydroxide (Plictran®), and bis(tributyl)tin oxide (TBTO).
-------
III. PESTICIDE PRODUCTION, IMPORTS, EXPORTS, AND DOMESTIC SUPPLIES
A. Introduction
In the U.S., there is no single, authoritative source of informa-
tion on the production, imports, exports, and domestic uses of all pesti-
cides . Several different federal government agencies as well as a few
trade journals 14—297 keep statistics on the production and movements of
certain pesticides. In the following sections of this chapter, the char-
acteristics of the available pesticide data sources and their use in this
study will be discussed.
B. The USDA "Pesticide Review"
The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture annually publishes the "Pesticide Review."
This publication is probably the most widely used and quoted source of data
on pesticides and their production and uses in the United States. It in-
cludes data from the U.S. Tariff Commission, the Bureau of Mines, the
Bureau of Census, the USDA, possibly other federal government agencies, and
other sources. The "Pesticide Review" is usually published about 18 months
after the end of the most recent year for which data are included. For
example, the "Pesticide Review 1972," the most recent issue available at
this writing (February 1974), was published in June of 1973 and includes only
preliminary data for 1971. Table II summarizes pesticide production volumes
by major categories for the period 1967-1971, from the "Pesticide Review
1972."
C. Organic Pesticides
The most important primary data source on which the USDA's
"Pesticide Review" relies is the annual report of the United States Tariff
Commission on the "U.S. Production and Sales of Pesticides and Related
Products," a part of the Tariff Commission's report on U.S. production and
sales of synthetic organic chemicals. The pesticides report is usually
issued in preliminary form about 10 months after the end of the year for
which pesticide movements are reported. The most recently issued report
covers the calendar year 1972 and was published in October of 1973. Data
in the Tariff Commission's report are therefore considerably more current
than those in the USDA's "Pesticide Review."
The Tariff Commission's pesticide report covers most synthetic
organic chemicals; it does not include inorganic pesticides nor all organic
pesticides. Pesticide production figures are presented in the Tarriff
9
-------
TABLE II
USDA DATA ON PESTICIDE PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES. 1967-1971J1/
Pesticide
Copper naphthenate
Copper sulfatefe'
Dithiocarbamic acid salts
Ferbam
Nabam
Zlneb
Mercury fungicides
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)£'
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol and salts
Other organic fungicides
TotalS'
2,4-D acidt'
2,4-D acid, esters, and salts
DNBP, ammonium salts
Maleic hydrazide
Methanearsonic acid salts
Phenyl mercuric acetate (PMA)i'
Silvex
Sodium chlorate^/
2,4,5-T acid]!/
2,4,5-T acid, esters, and salts
Other organic herbicides
Total
Aldrin-toxaphene group!.'
Calcium arsenate
DDT
Dibromochloropropane
Lead arsenate
Methyl bromideS/
Organophosphorus insecticides!!/
Methyl parathion
Parathion
Other
Other organic insecticides
Total
Grand Total
1967
(1.000 Ib)
3,473
33,992
c/
1968
(1.000 Ib)
177,886
439,965
1969
(1.000 Ib)
Fungicides
1970
(1,000 Ib)
(1.000 Ib)
1,718
37,192
£/
1,900
2,000d/
3,081
1,448
48,575
28,066
66.793
190,773
1,545
42,072
£'
1,500^'
1,938
2,500^'
941
45,988
£/
85.607
182,091
1,730
28,768
39,381
£'
£/
1,114
47,170
£'
50. 30?!/
168,470
Herbicides
(79,263)
94,116
c/
c/
£/
582
£'
30,000
(17,530)
45,542
235.541
499,514
Insecticides,
115,974
3,398
139,401
7,887
9,016
20,454
£/
38,163
20,0005!'
£/
227.326
581,619
1,175,173
(47,077)
56,998
£/
2,771
£/
534
1,597
30,000
(4,999)
11,626
268.238
423,840
Fumigants,
107,311
1,158!'
123,103
8,611
9,204!'
20,033
£/
50,572
£/
£'
260.892
580,884!'
1.134.739!/
(43,576)
c/
£'
3,271
30,454
457
2,016
30,000
£/
12,335
312.132!'
434,241
Rodent, icidest'
88,641
1,144!/
59,316
£/
4,156l/
21,047
132,496
41,353
15,259
75,884
188.632
495,432!/
l,054,567l/
1,695
31,112
35,110
c/
601
50,877
^
60.875
7180,270
£/
£/
£/
c/
24,476
337
c/
30,000
116,264
940
£'
£/
6,168
£/
(138,185)
37,226
c/
564,818
1,203,937
al Preliminary.
b/ Shipments by producers to agriculture (including for use as a minor plant nutrient).
£/ Withheld to avoid disclosure. Figure included in totals.
Al Estimated.
e_/ Not only a wood preservative for wood rot control but also a herbicide and desiccant.
ff Revised.
&/ Sulfur not included may amount to 150 million pounds.
h/ Figures in parentheses represent duplication but are Included in totals to be comparable
with the 1971 total.
i/ Also a fungicide.
j/ Estimated shipments to producers of herbicides and defoliants.
k/ Includes a small quantity of synthetic soil conditioners; does not include the fumlgants
carbon tetrachloride, carbon disulflde, ethylene dibromide, and ethylene dichloride, which
have many other uses; nor does it include paradichlorobenzene (classed by the Tariff
Commission as an intermediate) or inorganic rodenticIdea.
J7 Includes aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, Strobane (R), and toxaphene.
m/ Fumigant for control of both insects and weeds.
Source: Tariff Commission, Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Mines, and chemical industry.
10
-------
Commission report under the categories: "benzenoid and nonbenzenoid
chemicals" and "fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides." Very few of the
major pesticides are accounted for individually; most of them are lumped
together into large, general categories. Plant hormones are included among
the herbicides. Rodenticides, soil conditioners and fumigants are included
among the insecticides. In the report for 1972, the catch-all category
"all other acyclic insecticides, rodenticides, soil conditioners and fumi-
gants" alone makes up almost 207, of all organic insecticides. The fungicides
category includes large quantities of penta- and trichlorophenol (about 45%
of the total).
The Tariff Commission reports do not include data on pesticidal
products derived directly from fossil fuels such as coal tar, creosote and
petroleum oils (the amount of creosote used annually in wood preservation
is nearly as great as that of the over 200 synthetic organic pesticides
combined). Nor do they include numerous synthetic organics that have large
nonpesticidal uses, such as several fumigants (e.g., dichlorobenzene, carbon
disulfide, trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride, ethylene dibromide, ethylene
dichloride and ethylene oxide), several fungicides (e.g., the dithiocarbam-
ates, thiram and ziram; the proprietary dithiocarbamate mixtures, Niacide®,
Polyram®, Dithane M-45®, and Manzate 200®), biphenyl, orthophenyl phenol,
and organotin compounds. The California pesticide use report (see Appendix
B) notes substantial uses of many of these compounds. In addition, the
Tariff Commission does not include data on a number of disinfectants,
bacteriostats and germicides that are being increasingly considered as
pesticides by some other agencies of government.
Table III summarizes U.S. production of synthetic organic pesti-
cides by major categories from the Tariff Commission reports for 1971 and
1972, respectively. The production volume of herbicides increased by 5%
from 1971 to 1972; the fungicide volume decreased by 47o, while the in-
secticide volume increased by 1%. The combined production volume of syn-
thetic organic pesticides increased by 2%.
The Tariff Commission's report includes statistics on pesticide
sales (domestic and export) by quantity, value and unit value. However,
there is a consistent imbalance between the reported production and sales
volumes of synthetic organic pesticides. Table IV summarizes the reported
annual figures for production and sales of synthetic organic pesticides
for the period 1962-1972. In each of the 11 years, reported production
exceeded reported sales by a considerable margin, ranging from 90 million
pounds AI in 1964 to 233 million pounds AI in 1968. According to these
figures, a cumulative excess of production over sales of 1.64 billion
pounds existed during the 11-year period in question. Stocks in inventory,
carry-over from one season to the next and similar factors could account
for such imbalances between individual years, but these would be expected
to even out over a longer period of time. As shown in Table IV, they do not.
11
-------
TABLE III
U.S. TARIFF COMMISSION TOTALS ON THE PRODUCTION OF SYNTHETIC
Type of Pesticide
a/
Herbicides-
Insecticides—
c/
Fungicides"
ORGANIC PESTICIDES,
1,000
1971
428,512
557,710
149,495
1971 AND 1972lft''
Ib AI
1972
451,311
563,575
142,812
Increase
1971/1972
5%
1%
-47o
Totals 1,135,717 1,157,698 2%
a/ Includes plant growth regulators and defoliants.
b_/ Includes miticides, nematicides, rodenticides, fumigants (except
p-dichlorobenzene) and soil conditioners.
c/ Excludes o-phenylphenol.
12
-------
TABLE IV
PRODUCTION VS SALES FOR SYNTHETIC ORGANIC PESTICIDES.
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
11 Years
Cumulative
UNITED STATES,
Production
(1,000 Ib AI)
729,718
763,477
782,749
877,197
1,013,110
1,049,663
1,192,360
1,104,381
1,034,075
1,135,717
1,157,698
10,840,145
1962-1972l4-il5/
Sales
(Domestic
and Export)
(1,000 Ib)
633,962
651,471
692,355
763,905
822,256
897,363
959,631
928,663
880,914
946,337
1,021,565
9,198,422
Excess of
Production
over Sales
(1,000 Ib)
95,756
112,006
90,394
113,292
190,854
152,300
232,729
175,718
153,161
189,380
136,133
1,641,723
13
-------
In discussing this problem with pesticide experts at the U.S.
Tariff Commission, we were advised that, in their opinion, the production
figures are more reliable than those on the sales volumes. Producers of
pesticide active ingredients (as well as producers of other organic chemicals)
usually have very accurate statistics concerning their volumes of production.
Reliable statistics concerning sales are difficult to compile because pesti-
cides may be sold as technical active ingredients or as manufacturing con-
centrates for further processing by others; they may be shipped from the
production plant to another facility of the same company for further pro-
cessing; or they may be formulated into one or more finished, ready-to-use
products at the same site and then sold. Pesticide sales are usually
accounted for in terms of quantities of the finished product that the manu-
facturer sells. Often this is not the active ingredient, but one or more
formulated products containing different concentrations of active ingredient.
Converting these quantities of formulations back into active ingredient may
be a considerable source of difficulty and error.
U.S. Tariff Commission pesticide experts furthermore point out
that they consider the reported production figures to be minimal. It is
not likely that pesticide production figures would be overstated to the
Tariff Commission. Conversely, it is quite possible that quantities
actually produced would not be included in manufacturers' reports due to
oversights and/or errors in data collection.
One case in point is found in the statistics on the production
and disposition of DDT during a recent 6-year period. Table V summarizes
U.S. production, exports and "domestic disappearance" of DDT as reported
in the USDA "Pesticide Review" for the years 1965 through 1970. (1970 is
the last year for which DDT is shown individually in these statistics; for
subsequent years, DDT is included in a large and diverse category entitled
"all other cyclic insecticides and rodenticides" in the U.S. Tariff.
Commission's pesticide report.)
During the 6-year period shown in Table V, total "disappearance"
(domestic uses plus exports) of DDT exceeded total reported production by
about 44 million pounds AI. It is not clear whether in this instance,
domestic uses and/or exports have been overstated, or production under-
stated. There was a considerable demand for DDT in 1970 and 1971 for
intrastate stockpiling in anticipation of the cancellation of the registra-
tions for domestic uses of DDT which was then pending. Thus, the produc-
tion volume reported for 1970 may be low. On the other hand, the number
of DDT producers dropped from five in 1970 to two in 1971, so that produc-
tion probably was decreasing during 1970 as three producers shut down.
These examples illustrate the possibility that the Tariff Com-
mission's pesticide production figures may be on the low side, at least
14
-------
TABLE V
U.S. DDT PRODUCTION, EXPORT AND "DOMESTIC DISAPPEARANCE." 1965-1970J6-/
Year
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
Totals
Production Export
140,785 90,414
141,349 90,914
103,411 81,828
139,401 ,109,148
123,103 82,078
59,316 69,550
S/
707,365 523,932
(1,000 Ib)
"Domestic
Disappearance"
52,986
45,603
40,257
32,753
30,256
25,457
227,312
Total
"Disappearance"
143,400
136,517
122,085
141,901
112,334
95,007
751,244
Variance
Disappearance/
Production
+ 2,615
- 4,832
+ 18,674
+ 2,500
- 10,769
+ 35,691
+ 43,879
&/ DDT production was not shown individually in the pesticide production report after 1970 because
less than three producers remained.
-------
in some instances. However, if such underreporting occurs, it would be
small in relation tc the total quantities involved and it would not change
the overall picture appreciably.
D. Inorganic Pesticides
Some statistics on the production of inorganic chemicals are kept
by the Bureau of. Mines, and estimates on inorganic pesticides derived
therefrom are included in the USDA's Pesticide Review each year.
Some important inorganic pesticides reported in the USDA Pesticide
Review are copper sulfate, sodium chlorate, calcium arsenate, lead arsenate
and others (see Table II, p. 10).
A host of other inorganic pesticides are not included in the USDA
Pesticide Review. These include sulfuric and phosphoric acids, sodium
arsenate, ammonium sulfamate (AMS), aluminum phosphide, sulfuryl fluoride
and cryolite. The California pesticide use report (see Appendix B) notes
substantial use of many of these compounds. In addition, the USDA review
does not include the chromated wood preservatives in the totals for pesti-
cides.
Inorganic sulfur is also used in substantial quantities for pest
control purposes, chiefly for the control of fungus diseases on crops.
The USDA Pesticide Review (1972) states that sulfur used for fungicidal
purposes "may amount to 150 million pounds." While this quantity is very
large compared to most organic or inorganic fungicides, it represents only
a small fraction of the total production and consumption of sulfur. For
this reason inorganic sulfur is often omitted from statistics on pesticides.
E. Pesticide Imports
i
Pesticide imports are reported by the Bureau of the Census,
(Report FT 246, TSUSA Schedule 405-1500), and by the U.S. Tariff Commission
in its annual report on "Imports of Benzenoid Chemicals and Products"
(TC Publication 601). The latter report, by its title definition, would
include only cyclic organic pesticides, but it actually includes also a
few acyclic pesticides such as malathion. The Tariff Commission report
is issued annually and usually becomes available about 8 months after the
end of the year to which it pertains. The most recent report available
covers imports during 1972 and was published in August of 1973.
The pesticide import data in the Tariff Commission report are
reported differently from the data on domestic production; the domestic
16
-------
data are categorized by both active ingredients and formulated products
but the import data do not make this distinction. However, our experience,
and that of several pesticide importers with whom we checked, indicate
that practically all pesticides imported into the United States are im-
ported as active ingredient. Thus, we have made no adjustments for possibly
lower active ingredient content of formulations in using the pesticide im-
port figures.
The Tariff Commission's report for 1972 provides detailed data,
by chemical, for imports of benzenoid pesticides totalling 21.6 million
pounds. Unspecified "other pesticides" make up an additional 82,070 Ib.
The report states that the total shown, 21.7 million pounds, amounted to
92% of the total quantity of pesticides imported according to the statis-
tics of the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Thus the
true total for all pesticides would appear to be 23.6 million pounds, i.e.,
almost 2 million pounds higher than the Tariff Commission's total.
Another incongruity between Tariff Commission import statistics
and other statistics on pesticides is that the former include some disin-
fectants that are not included among pesticides in the USDA's Pesticide
Review (Section B above) or the Tariff Commission's pesticide production
report (Section C above). Imports of disinfectants and related products
included in the pesticide total amount to about 500,000 Ib. Deducting
this quantity from the total, we estimate that imports of benzenoid
pesticides in 1972 were about 23.0 million pounds.
Our search failed to produce any records or indications of imports
of inorganic pesticides into the U.S.
F. Pesticide Exports
Pesticide exports are reported by the Bureau of the Census in its
annual report (FT 410). This report records exports of pesticides (by
quantity and by value) by "organic pesticide active ingredients," "inorganic
pesticide active ingredients," and "formulated pesticides" (the latter not
categorized according to organic and inorganic active ingredients). There
are several subcategories in each of these three raajor classes, but in most
cases data are not reported concerning individual products.
The census report includes among pesticides certain disinfectants,
deodorants and germicides which are not classed as pesticides in other
statistics. It also includes inorganic sulfur fungicides which are likewise
not included in many other statistics on pesticides, as was pointed out in
Section D.
17
-------
A further problem is the fact that in the category of formulated
pesticides, quantities are reported only in terms of the finished, formulated
products, without indication of the active ingredient content.
In order to translate these totals into quantities of active in-
gredients, we made a thorough analysis of census data for all pesticide
exports recorded in Schedules 599.2010 through .2090, comprising "insecti-
cides, fungicides, disinfectants and similar products as separate, chemically
defined compounds put up in forms or packings for retail sale; or prepara-
tions (mixtures), whether put up in bulk or for retail sale." For each
pesticide category in this schedule (including herbicides), unit dollar
values of the pesticide exports were computed by countries of destination.
Based on our knowledge of the crop protection problems and/or the pesticide
trading patterns of the countries of destination, and the costs of different
pesticide products, we estimated exports by products and active ingredient
contents for the major pesticides in each category. Appropriate correction
factors were then applied to convert the quantities of formulated pesticides
exported into active ingredient equivalents. These were then added to the
quantities of pesticides exported as active ingredients as reported in
commodity groups 512.0610 through .0685, and 514.7035 through .7045 of
report FT 410. The estimated export for each of the 25 intensive-study
pesticides are included in the individual case studies.
G. Domestic Supplies of Pesticides
Our estimate of the domestic supply of pesticides in 1972 is
summarized in Table VI. In this table, we elected to separate soil condi-
tioners and fumigants from insecticides. Soil conditioners and to a lesser
extent most fumigants have little in common with insecticides in regard to
their physical, chemical, and biological properties, and their use patterns.
They are often included in the insecticide category simply because this is
the way the Tariff Commission's report on synthetic organic chemicals
(Section C above) treats them.
Furthermore, we have separated penta- and trichlorophenols from
fungicides. These chlorinated phenols account for almost one-half of the
quantity of all organic fungicides. Again, their properties and use patterns
differ greatly from those of most other fungicides and, in our opinion, these
two types of fungicides deserve separate discussion and consideration.
Furthermore, we have separated the herbicide, insecticide and
fungicide categories into organic and inorganic chemicals, as well as
showing combined inorganic plus organic subtotals and totals for all pesti-
cides.
18
-------
TABLE VI
ESTIMATED PRODUCTION, IMPORTS, EXPORTS AND DOMESTIC SUPPLIES
OF SELECTED PESTICIDES BY CATEGORIES, 1972
Herbicides^/
Organic
Inorganic
Subtotal
Insecticides!!/
Organic
Inorganic
Subtotal
Fungicides^/
Organic
Inorganic
Subtotal
Fumigants,—/
Soil Conditioners
Penta- and Tri-
Cl-Phenols
All Pesticides^/
Organic
Inorganic
Totals
U.S.
Production
451,300
41,000
492,300
442,700
7,000
449,700
83,000
60,000
143,000
121,000
70,000
1,168,000
108,000
1,276,000
Imports
12,200
Negligible
12,200
5,600
Negligible
5,600
5,200
Negligible
5,200
Negligible
Negligible
23,000
Negligible
23,000
Exports
76,400
400
76,800
174,900
1,600
176,500
24,000
5,300
29,300
38,900
1,500
315,700
7,300
323,000
Domestic
Supply
387,100
40,600
427,700
273,400
5,400
278,800
64,200
54,700
118,900
82,100
68,500
875,300
100,700
976,000
£/ Includes defoliants, desiccants, plant growth regulators, chlorates.
b_/ Includes miticides, nematicides, rodenticides, repellents.
£/ Excludes sulfur, creosote, coal tar, penta- and trichlorophenols.
d/ Excludes p-dichlorobenzene and certain other fumigants (see p. 11).
e_/ Excludes sulfur, creosote, petroleum, coal tar, p-dichlorobenzene, etc.
(see pp. 11 and 16).
19
-------
Our final estimates for U.S. production, imports and exports were
obtained by following the steps and making the adjustments outlined in
Sections E and F above. Imports were then added to, and exports subtracted
from the appropriate U.S. production categories to obtain domestic supplies.
Our estimates as shown in Table VI are at variance with the
Tariff Commission's preliminary data on the production of synthetic organic
pesticides in 1972 on one point. The Tariff Commission's total for the
production of cyclic fungicides, 98,164,000 Ib, includes 49,704,000 Ib of
pentachlorophenol. Trichlorophenol is not shown separately in the 1972
report, but is included in the category "all other cyclic fungicides"
which totals 45,360,000 Ib. Up until 1968, trichlorophenols (and their
salts) were shown separately within the cyclic fungicides group. Their
reported production volume was 25,254,000 Ib in 1967; 28,066,000 Ib in 1968
(Table II). Assuming (conservatively) that the production of trichloro-
phenol and salts for pesticidal purposes in 1972 was at least 20,000,000
Ib, the resulting balance, which all cyclic fungicides other than tri- and
pentachlorophenol would have to share, would be only about 28,000,000 Ib.
Our estimates indicate that such an assumption would be unrealistic, and
that the volume of production of cyclic fungicides other than tri- and
pentachlorophenol in 1972 was about 38,000,000 Ib. Accordingly, our
estimates for the 1972 production of organic fungicides including penta-
and trichlorophenols exceed those reported by the Tariff Commission by
10,000,000 Ib. This difference is carried forward to the totals for all
organic pesticides and for all pesticides, our estimates being higher by
the same 10,000,000 Ib in each case.
Trichlorophenol is also used as reactive intermediate (e.g., in
making 2,4,5-T). Part, but not all, of production for this purpose is
probably included in the Tariff Commission's data for fungicides. This
factor may account for the major part of the discrepancy.
A second factor may explain this and several other, smaller
apparent inconsistencies between different statistics and different
estimates on the production and movements of pesticides: substantial
differences may occur between pesticide inventories at the beginning and
at the end of the reporting year. This factor may operate particularly
in the case of several smaller-volume pesticides. In such cases, one
production run sometimes suffices for two or more seasons of use. Such a
product would then appear in the production statistics only in the year
when it was made, while its use in the field would proceed at a more even
annual rate. Our data indicate that in general, pesticide stocks in in-
ventory at the beginning of 1972 were sufficiently similar to those on
hand at the end of the year that this factor would not appreciably affect
the overall picture. This problem does not appear to be a major factor
with any of our intensive-study products in 1972, nor a-sifnificant problem
in the remaining pesticides as a group.
20
-------
H« Estimated Production. Imports. Exports and Uses of the Intensive-Study
Pesticides
Estimates of the production volumes, imports, exports, and domes-
tic uses of the 25 intensive-study pesticides were arrived at by a careful,
step-wise procedure of analyzing, cross-checking and correlating different
information items, including all published data and statistics mentioned
in the preceding sections of this chapter. In addition, numerous news
items in trade magazines and other pesticide-related literature were studied
and utilized where appropriate. Initial estimates were prepared and re-
evaluated with the assistance of other pesticide experts, and with the
generous cooperation of many of the basic producers of the products involved.
We believe these estimates to be accurate within a tolerance limit
of ± 10% for quantities over 10 million pounds, and to ± 1 million pounds
for volumes below 10 million pounds, except where stated otherwise.
Home and garden uses of pesticides were not included in the scope
of this study. Little data are available on the kinds and quantities of
pesticides that are used in this area in the U.S.—' Our estimates on the
quantities of the selected study products used in the home and garden sec-
tor were obtained simply by subtracting the estimated volumes of use in
the other three categories from the estimated domestic supply. Unlike the
other estimates, home and garden use estimates are not supported by any
other survey results or statistics.
Pesticide uses in the other three major categories are discussed
in detail in Chapters IV, V, and VI of this report.
21
-------
IV. AGRICULTURAL USES OF PESTICIDES
A. Introduction
Chemical pesticides including insecticides, raiticides, nematicides,
rodenticides, fungicides, fumigants, herbicides, plant growth regulators,
defoliants, desiccants, and others are used extensively by American farmers
for the protection of crops, rangeland, livestock, stored products and
structures from pests. Modern agricultural production techniques such as
growing large, continuous stands of one crop (monoculture), use of high
yielding crop varieties, irrigation, fertilizers, etc., increase potential
crop losses due to pests and thus the need to prevent such losses. American
farmers use high levels of production inputs (including capital, power, and
those mentioned in the preceding sentence) per unit of cropland. Thus, a
growing crop often represents a substantial investment. If and when that
investment becomes exposed to potential pest damage, there is a powerful
incentive to protect it.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (1970, 1974),
farmers used 52% of all pesticides used in the U.S. in 1966, 59% in 1971.
Table VII summarizes total domestic use* and farm use of pesticides in
1966 compared to 1971 according to these USDA estimates.
Total U.S. use of herbicides increased from 227 to 359 million
pounds of active ingredients from 1966 to 1971 (58% increase). During
the same time, farm use of herbicides increased by slightly over 100%,
increasing farmers' share of the total domestic use of herbicides from
55% in 1966 to 70% in 1971.
According to the same sources, the total domestic use of in-
secticides decreased by 3% from 1966 to 1971, i.e., from 329 to 319 million
pounds of active ingredients. Farm use of insecticides increased slightly
(3%) from 1966 to 1971, i.e., from 195 to 201 million pounds of active
ingredients. Farmers' share of the total U.S. use of insecticides in-
creased from 59% in 1966 to 63% in 1971.
Total fungicide use in the U.S. increased by 24% from 1966 to
1971, i.e., from 125 to 155 million pounds of active ingredients. Farm
use of fungicides increased at about the same rate (27%), from 33 to 42
million pounds of active ingredients. Farmers' share of the total
domestic use of fungicides was about the same in 1971 (27%) as in 1966 (26%).
Note that the totals given in Table VII differ substantially from the
totals given in Tables II and III which are for production, not
consumption.
22
-------
TABLE VII
USDA ESTIMATES OF PERCENTAGES OF PESTICIDES USED BY FARMERS
to
10
IN THE UNITED STATES. IN 1966 AN" 1Q7ll7f18/
Total U.S. Use
(1,000.000 Ib AI)
Increase
Type of Pesticide!/ 1966 1971 1966-1971
Herbicides
Insecticides
Fungicides
Totals
227 359 58%
329 319 -3%
125 155 24%
681 833 227»
Farm Use
(1.000,000 Ib AI)
Increase
1966 1971 1966-1971
125 251 101%
195 201 3%
33 42 27%
353 494 40%
Farmers ' Share
of Total Use
1966
55%
59%
26%
52%
1971
70%
63%
27%
59%
a/ Herbicides include plant growth regulators, defoliants, desiccants; insecticides include miticides,
rodenticides, fumigants; excluded are sulfur, creosote, petroleum oils and several other
pesticides as discussed on pp. 11 and 16.
-------
According to the USDA estimates, the domestic use of pesticides
for all purposes increased from 681 to 833 million pounds of active in-
gredients from 1966 to 1971 (22%). Farm use of pesticides increased by
407o, from 353 to 494 million pounds of active ingredients. This increase
in farmers' share of the total domestic use of pesticides is primarily due
to the increased use of chemical herbicides in agriculture.
Farm uses of pesticides are highly concentrated, i.e., only a
small number of crops account for 80 to 90% of all agricultural uses of
herbicides, insecticides and fungicides, respectively.
Herbicides (including defoliants, desiccants and plant growth
regulators): We estimate that at the present time, more than 90% of all
herbicides used by American farmers go on field crops. Three crops account
for close to 80% of the total farm consumption of herbicides, i.e., corn
(about 50%), soybeans (17%), and cotton (11%). Wheat and sorghum account
for an estimated 5% each of total farm herbicide use, while rice, peanuts
and several minor crops make up the balance of field crop uses. Less than
10% of all herbicides used in agriculture go on pasture and rangeland,
vegetables, fruits and nuts, and fallow land.
Insecticides (including miticides and rodenticides, excluding
fumigants): More than 80% of the total quantity of insecticides used by
farmers in the U.S. at present are applied to field crops. Only two crops
account for almost 70% of this total, i.e., cotton (close to 50%) and corn
(18%). Soybeans, tobacco and a number of other crops account for the re-
maining insecticide uses on field crops. Fruit and nut crops (including
citrus) receive approximately 10% of the insecticides used in agriculture,
whereas vegetable crops, pastures and a number of minor other crops account
for the balance.
Fungicides (excluding sulfur, creosote, wood preservatives):
Approximately 60% of all fungicides currently used in agriculture in the
United States are applied to fruit and nut crops, including citrus fruits.
About 25% of agricultural fungicides go on vegetables, the balance of about
15% on field crops„
Table VIII presents an overview of the major farm uses of the
pesticides selected for special study in this project. It is evident that
the study products cover all major farm uses of pesticides.
In the following sections of this chapter, the sources of informa-
tion that form the basis for our estimates of the agricultural uses of the
25 study products will be discussed. Data and information from all of the
sources detailed below in Sections B through F were systematically collected,
analyzed, cross-checked, and condensed into an initial scope estimate for
24
-------
TABLE VIII
MAJOR AGRICULTURAL USES OF INTENSIVE-STUDY PESTICIDES BY CROP AND TYPE
Crop
Corn
Soybeans
Cotton
Sorghum,
Small grains
Fruit crops
(including citrus,
pineapples)
Vegetable crops
Herbicides
Alachlor
Atrazine
2,4-D
Alachlor
Trifluralin
Alachlor
Diuron
MSMA
Trifluralin
Insecticides
Aldrin
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Chlordane
Diazinon
Disulfoton
Parathion
Toxaphene
Carbaryl
Malathion
Me-parathion
Toxapt ~ne
Carbaryl
Disulfoton
Malathion
Parathion
Me-parathion
Toxaphene
Fungicides
Captani/
Captai
,§/
CaptanS
a/
2,4-D
Atraz ine
Bromacil
Diuron
Diuron
Trifluralin
Disulfoton
Parathion
Toxaphene
Carbaryl
Diazinon
Malathion
Parathion
Plictrart0'
Carbaryl
Diazinon
Malathion
Parathion
Captan£/
Maneb£/
Captan
Maneb
Captan
Maneb
£/ Seed protection.
25
-------
each study product. These preliminary estimates were then subjected to
scrutiny by other project members; outside consultants and other experts;
pesticide manufacturers, formulators, distributors and retailers; and
federal, state and university pesticide experts. Thny were further refined
as additional data were obtained. Information gathering activities in this
phase of the project included field trips to Arizona, Delaware, Iowa,
Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas, several trips to
Washington, B.C., plus extensive telephone contacts with experts in other
areas. The estimates of the agricultural uses of each study product by
quantities and geographic regions were eventually finalized by correlation
and integration of all of these numerous and diverse inputs. These esti-
mates are presented in the individual case studies, and they are reflected
in the flow diagrams for each study product (see Section VIII of this report)
B. The USDA Farm Pesticide Use Reports
The USDA reports on the "Quantities of Pesticides Used by
Farmers" in 1966 and 1971, cited above, are the most comprehensive sources
of nationwide information in this field. When our study was initiated
early in 1973, we were aware of the USDA's 1971 survey. Our desire to
make use of their survey results to the greatest extent possible received
the Department's full cooperation. The Economic Research Service's National
Economic Analysis Division made available to us a set of raw data from
their survey in the summer of 1973, and a copy of the manuscript of their
complete report was received in time for the completion of the present
chapter of our report. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's cooperation
was very helpful and is gratefully acknowledged. The data from their
survey are an important addition to those we obtained from other sources,
even though they pertain to 1971, while the base year for our study is
1972.
Our estimates of the quantities of the 25 intensive-study pesti-
cides that were used by farmers in the United States in 1972 differ con-
siderably from those reported by the USDA for 1971 for a number of products.
In our analysis, some of these differences reflect actual changes in pesti-
cide use patterns from 1971 to 1972. For instance, several different
information sources confirm independently that the use of methyl parathion
and toxaphene on field crops, especially on cotton and soybeans, increased
significantly from 1971 to 1972. Likewise, the use of alachlor herbicide
increased substantially from 1971 to 1972. By contrast, differences
between the two surveys in the estimated farm use of several other pesti-
cides (examples: atrazine, MSMA) appear to be due to other reasons. In
the case of 2,4-D, aldrin, carbaryl, parathion, and diazinon, there are
no indications of major changes in use patterns from 1971 to 1972, and
the two surveys are in reasonably good agreement.
26
-------
The basic data for the USDA's 1971 farm pesticide survey were
obtained from personal interviews with about 8,600 farmers in 394 counties
throughout the United States (except Alaska). These interviews were con-
ducted in a nationwide program whose principal purpose was to obtain data
on farm production expenditures for 1971. The original, raw pesticide
data were then expanded and adjusted by specific factors to translate them
from the survey sample to the national universe.
The questionnaire used in this survey, entitled "1971 Farm Pro-
duction Expenditure Survey" (USDA Statistical Reporting Service, OMB
#40-571102), is a mammoth form, consisting of 56 pages and 487 questions,
many including numerous subquestions. Reportedly, completion of one inter-
view takes a minimum of 3 hr. (Persons knowledgable in conducting personal
farmer interviews feel that the productive cooperation span of farmers in
such situations rarely exceeds 30 min.)
In this questionnaire, 28 of the 487 master questions pertain to
pesticides. An analysis of the format provided for pesticide use entries
suggests that even a person highly trained in the field of pesticides, and
being familiar with the many different brands, formulations, concentrati«ns
and package sizes in which pesticides are available, and the different ways
in which they are applied, would have difficulty completing the form
accurately.
As an example, a given corn field may be treated by a single
herbicide or by a mixture of several herbicides, applied preemergence either
as a broadcast or as a band treatment; this preemergence application may be
followed by one or more postemergence applications of a single herbicide or
a mixture of several products. The same field may also receive pre- and/or
postemergence broadcast, band, or in-furrow treatments of one or more in-
secticides or combinations. The corn seed planted may have been treated
with one or more seed protectant fungicide(s) and/or insecticide(s). These
treatments can be applied to the seed either prior to planting (by the seed
house, a commercial seed treating establishment, or by the farmer himself),
or by way of a planter box treatment. The same corn field could also
receive one or more foliar fungicide treatment for the control of foliar
diseases, and/or foliar insecticide treatment(s).
Pesticide use patterns on many other crops are equally or even
more complex. All of these intricate details are being asked of and by
people who are generally not pesticide experts. Furthermore, the entire
pesticide section represents only a small portion of all questions in the
lengthy survey form. Thus, it is not surprising that the data on the
quantities of pesticides used by farmers obtained by extrapolation from
this source are in some points at variance with pesticide use data from
other sources.
27
-------
An excellent discussion of the difficulties involved in arriving
at meaningful pesticide use data has been presented by Petty (1974).—' This
investigator compared data on the use of pesticides in Illinois obtained
from (1) a survey of county extension advisors; (2) random surveys of 116
to 175 corn fields from 14 to 21 of the 99 counties in Illinois, and
(3)from an annual survey of pesticide use conducted by the Illinois Crop
Reporting Service. The results from the three separate surveys were quite
comparable, with only a few significant discrepancies that were accounted
for by sampling methods and sample size.
The smallest geographical unit shown individually in the USDA
survey is a "farm production region." Illinois is one of five states in-
cluded in the "corn belt." Therefore, a direct comparison between the USDA's
findings for Illinois and the data in Petty's study is not possible.
Likewise, comparisons between the USDA data and those from other individual
states that published farm pesticide use data for 1971 (California,
Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin) could not be made.
There is one additional major variance between our estimates for
1972 and those in the 1971 USDA survey. The latter pegs the total use of
pesticides for all purposes in the U.S. in 1971 at 833 million pounds.
According to our estimates (Table VI, p. 19), the comparable figure for
1972 is 976 million pounds. There were no increases of this magnitude in
the volume of production of pesticides from 1971 to 1972 (Table III, p. 12),
nor in the volume of imports, nor decreases in the volume of exports that
could account for a variance of about 140 million pounds. The USDA estimate
of the total domestic consumption of pesticides in 1971 is probably too
low.
C. Survey of the Federal/State Cooperative Extension Service
The Federal/State Cooperative Extension Service in most states
issues recommendations or suggestions on the use of peisticides. A number
of extension specialists follow use patterns of agricultural pesticides.
We therefore conducted a nationwide survey aimed at collecting all avail-
able data on pesticide uses from this source.
In June of 1973, personal letters were written to the Directors
of the Cooperative Extension Service in each of the 50 states, and Puerto
Rico. We informed them of the purpose of our study and asked for the
following three items:
- A complete set of the state's recommendations for the control
of insects, weeds, diseases and other pests affecting agri-
cultural crops, fruits, vegetables, ornamentals, forests,
28
-------
home and garden, livestock; and recommendations involving
industrial, commercial, public health and other uses of chemical
pesticides.
- Copies of reports or studies on actual pesticide use within
the state, or any information on agencies or individuals that
might keep such records, so that we could contact them
directly.
- Information on whether or not the state has a chemical pesti-
cide coordinator.
Reminders were sent to those states that did not reply to the first
inquiry and, after considerable follow-up activity in a number of instances,
we eventually obtained responses from all but three states (Rhode Island,
New Jersey, Nevada). A response was also received from Puerto Rico.
The responses received in regard to the above three items may
be summarized as follows.
1. Pesticide use recommendations: A voluminous file of state
pesticide use recommendations was accumulated. All 47 states that re-
sponded and Puerto Rico furnished us their recommendations. In some in-
stances, several neighboring states jointly develop and use the same
recommendations. All recommendations were analyzed thoroughly and proved
helpful to the objectives of our study, particularly in two areas, i.e.,
(1) determining rates of application of study products, to supplement use
data furnished us in terms of number of acres treated; and (2) determining
chemical and nonchemical alternatives available to specific pesticide uses
pertinent to our study.
2. Pesticide use data from state sources: On this question, a
number of Extension Service Directors or their representatives advised us
that no such data are kept within the state. Others referred us to other
departments or individual researchers within the state university, or to
other agencies within the state. All of these leads were followed up, and
a great volume of correspondence ensued. The results may be summarized as
follows:
Comprehensive pesticide use data for 1972 were obtained from
California, Illinois, and Minnesota.
Comprehensive data for 1971, and/or partial data for 1972 were
obtained from Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina,
North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.
29
-------
No pesticide use data were obtained from Alabama, Alaska,
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming, nor from Puerto Rico.
3. Statewide Chemical Pesticide Coordinator: Most of the states
reported that they have this office and gave us the name of the present
officeholder. The following four states reported that they do not have a
chemical pesticide coordinator: Hawaii, Kentucky, Michigan, and Washington.
A copy of the letter by which this survey was initiated, and the
names of all individuals with whom we communicated by letter, telephone
and/or in person in this phase of the study are included in Appendix C of
this report. The list comprises 142 names.
D. Survey of the EPA Community Pesticide Studies Projects
In the EPA Community Pesticide Studies Program (now called
"Epidemiologic Studies"), pesticide use data for individual states or re-
gions were collected. Through the cooperation of Dr. W. S. Murray, EPA
Office of Pesticide Programs, we obtained the names and addresses of 13
Pesticide Community Studies Project Directors. In October of 1973,
letters were addressed personally to 10 of these (data from the Pesticide
Community Studies in Arizona, California and Utah were already in our files)
asking them for any pesticide use data by products, quantities, crops or
other end uses that might have been collected in their community pesticide
studies. We advised them that 1972 was the base year for our study, but
indicated that if they did not have data for that year, information for any
other recent time period would also be helpful.
Pesticide use data that added significantly in our study were
from the following Pesticide Community Studies Projects: Arizona, Hawaii,
Idaho, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. Three other community
pesticides study projects had pesticide use data only for small geographic
areas (such as one or two counties) that were interesting in themselves,
but did not help our survey significantly. These were: Colorado, Iowa,
and Michigan. Data from these studies are presented in Appendix B together
with additional data from other sources on pesticide use in other states.
A copy of the letter by which this survey was initiated, and the
names of the individuals with whom we were in contact by letter, telephone
and/or in person in this phase of the study are included in Appendix D of
this report.
30
-------
E. Survey of Pesticide Manufacturers
The 25 intensive-study products investigated in this project
are manufactured by at least 26 basic producers in the U.S.
Products that are made by only one basic producer are as follows:
alachlor aldrin captan
atrazine carbaryl triphenatin hydroxide
bromacil carbofuran bis(tributyltin)oxide
diuron chlordane
trifluralin diazinon
disulfoton
malathion
tr icyclohexy11 in
hydroxide
The following products are manufactured by more than one basic
producer:
sodium chlorate parathion creosote
2,4-D methyl parathion p-dichlorobenzene
MSMA toxaphene maneb
methyl bromide
pentachlorophenol
Letters were sent to each of the 26 companies who produce
one or more of the above products. Most of these letters were addressed
personally to an appropriate executive within the company. A copy of
this correspondence was sent to the National Agricultural Chemicals
Association in Washington, B.C. for information purposes.
Manufacturers were asked to furnish the following data on their
respective products:
Physical and chemical properties
Mammalian toxicity and hazards to humans
Toxicity and hazards to nontarget organisms
Hazards to the environment
Degradation in the environment
Principal target crops
Principal target pests
Application equipment, rates, timing and frequency
Areas of use by six major geographic regions.
31
-------
The cooperation received from the great majority of these com-
panies was excellent. Most of them furnished extensive data on their
respective products, including technical bulletins, sample labels, and
many other pertinent information items. Some companies were reluctant
to comment on the use patterns of their products, but others answered
all questions freely.
A number of the same companies were visited in person in the
course of another task of this project, as described in greater detail
in Chapter II of this report. In these personal meetings, many manu-
facturers assisted us further in rounding out the information on their
products.
The data received from the pesticide producers through these
written and personal communications were especially helpful in completing
our knowledge in regard to the physical, chemical and biological properties
of the study products, their most commonly used formulations, their mamma-
lian toxicity, environmental impact potential, and their use patterns in
terms of crops, pests, and geographical distribution.
A copy of the letter sent to the manufacturers and the names
of all individuals with whom we communicated by letter, telephone,
and/or in person in this phase of the project are included in Appendix E
of this report. This list consists of 54 names.
F. Pesticide Data from Other Sources
Several other organizations and individuals recently studied farm
pesticide uses. These sources, and other references consulted frequently
in this phase of the study are numerous,fri3
32
-------
V. INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL. AND INSTITUTIONAL USES OF PESTICIDES
Pesticides are widely used by industrial, commercial, and insti-
tutional establishments, but this usage has been studied much less than
has agricultural use. This chapter is divided into three main sections:
(1) types of pest control problems, (2) major applications of pesticides,
and (3) discussions of the usage of 25 intensive-study selected pesticides.
A. Types of Pest Control Problems
The pest control problems confronting the industrial, commercial,
and institutional sectors will be discussed separately.
1. Industrial; The large and diverse industrial sector en-
counters many types of pest problems. Primary concern centers around the
control of unwanted vegetation, insects, and vertebrates, and the destruc-
tion of property by fungi, mold, etc. A wide variety of herbicides, in-
secticides, rodenticides, fungicides, and fumigants are used.
Vegetation control takes two forms: (1) controlling weeds, and
(2) eliminating vegetation entirely. Weed control is employed in land-
scaping at industrial plant sites and industrial parks. Weeds are also
controlled at refineries, in lumber yards, around warehouses, along fence
lines, in ditchbanks, in forest tree nurseries, along roads, utility rights-
of-way, and commercial forest lands. Eliminating vegetation entirely (soil
sterilization) is often desirable in parking lots, railroad rights-of-way,
industrial waste areas, vacant lots, unpaved roads, and around quarry pits.
Insect control is practiced by almost all industrial firms to
control nuisance insects indoors (such as termites, roaches, ants, and
spiders) and to some degree outdoors (mosquitos around water areas and
landscape insect pests) at production facilities. Commercial forests,
greenhouses, and nurseries require constant control to maintain their pro-
ducts. The food and beverage industry is much concerned about insect de-
struction or infestation of its products. Food processors, packagers,
bottlers, bakers, brewers, dairies, mills, etc., maintain constant control
of insects. The storage of food in warehouses creates a control need pest
also: direct application of insecticides or fumigation of enclosed areas
is usually employed.
Vertebrate control primarily involves commensal rodents (e.g.,
Norway rats and house mice) which consume and contaminate foodstuff, and do
damage to many objects by gnawing. The consumption of food products by
rodents is a problem innearlyall phases of food processing, and is
33
-------
particularly serious in milling and storing cereal grains and products. In
their quest for food, rodents can gnaw through almost any material less
hard than their tooth enamel, e.g. corrugated boxes, wooden doors, and
occasionally even concrete before it has hardened. Gnawing on furniture,
lead pipes, plastics, and electrical wiring are frequent activities among
rodents. The shipping industry has a particular problem with rats invading
ships' holds. In addition, moles, squirrels, bats and gophers are often
destructive pests.
Birds create pest problems in industrial areas as well as in
agriculture. Birds consume or destroy foodstuffs, carry diseases affecting
man, cause economic losses (nonfoodstuffs), and can have negative effects
on man's comfort and aesthetics. Birds can enter through broken windows of
warehouses and foul stored foodstuffs with droppings or excess nesting
material. Bird populations at industrial sites present a hazard to employees
since birds produce aerosols and excretions of disease organisms, act as
intermediate hosts for infectious disease, and are reservoirs for disease
organisms. Economic losses in industry are suffered from birds, also.
Power companies are plagued by woodpeckers damaging utility poles, and short
circuits caused by birds nesting on poles, flying into wires, perching on
wires, or by shorting wires with streams of excrement. Excessive bird
populations in industrial areas also create noise problems and are a
general nuisance to employees.
Fungus, yeast and molds create problems throughout industry.
Mildew-proofing and antifouling paints are used to protect susceptible
surfaces. Fungicides are used in industrial cooling waters, food packaging
containers, plastic pipes, and many other areas where mildew and fungus are
a problem.
Control of the various pests is done by commercial pest control
operators, lawn and tree services, or the industrial firm itself. When
a firm does not employ the services of outsiders, they usually buy their
chemicals from chemical or janitorial supply houses.
2. Commerical: Commercial firms have essentially the same
problems as do industrial firms. They too must control unwanted vegetation,
insects, vertebrates, and fungus problems. A wide variety of chemicals
are used in this sector, also.
Vegetation control involves prevention of weeds in landscaping
around buildings such as apartment houses, motels, hotels, restaurants,-
and warehouses. Soil sterilization is employed in parking lots, unpaved
driveways, and fence lines. Firms engaged in enterprises directly pro-
ducing vegetation, such as sod farms, real estate development, botanical
gardens, florists, and herbariums use large amounts of herbicides in the
34
-------
course of their business. Firms engaged in businesses conducted outdoors
such as race tracks, drive-in theaters, resort hotels, tennis clubs,
summer camps, cemeteries, golf courses, zoological gardens, airports, and
marinas use the largest amounts of herbicides in the commercial sector.
Insect control is often a must in commercial establishments be-
cause of state and local laws. Food handling firms such as bars, restaurants,
grocery stores, meat markets, and outdoor food markets must maintain con-
stant insect control. Firms directly producing vegetation (e.g. sod farms,
florists and nurserymen, etc.) also must control insects. All commercial
indoor establishments can have insect problems which are either pre-
treated on a periodic schedule or attacked when an infestation occurs.
Those handling food and vegetation represent the largest group of insecti-
cide users.
The vertebrate, bird, and fungus problems encountered in the
commercial sector are similar to those previously discussed in the indus-
tiral sector. One problem worth specific mention is the control of birds
around airports. The possibility of birds striking flying aircraft is an
acute danger to man's safety. Bird strikes have caused crashes of air-
planes both during take-off and landing.
3. Institutional: Use of pesticides by the institutional sector
is small in comparison to the industrial and commercial sectors. Insti-
tutions include homes for the aged, blind, orphans, deaf and dumb; private
grade schools, high schools, and colleges; churches; private hospitals;
tax-exempt charitable foundations; museums; and other nonprofit organizations.
Pest control is incidental to the normal functioning of the organization,
and primarily involves landscaping and control of nuisance pests indoors.
Hospitals have the most important pest control needs. Control
of all insects, vertebrates, and fungus, as well as bacteria and virus, is
essential to providing the healthy environment hospitals require. The opera-
ting rooms are a very critical area and must be constantly maintained.
Most institutional pest control is contracted to pest control
operators, and lawn and garden services. The remainder is done by the
institution itself by purchasing the necessary chemicals from chemical or
janitorial supply houses. Hospitals do much of their own work since a
constant program must be maintained.
B. Major Applications of Pesticides
Industrial, commercial and institutional establishments use herbi-
cides to control unwanted vegetation, insecticides to control destructive
35
-------
pests; fungicides and wood preservatives to protect property; and fumigants
to control destructive pests and disease. In this section 11 major categories
of pesticide users in the industrial/commercial/institutional sector are dis-
cussed. In addition to these specific categories, herbicides are used for
general maintenance of grounds. Table IX shows the market for herbicides in
this usage, as estimated by Dr. Dale W. Young, an MRI consultant on this
project.
1. The wood preservation industry: The wood preservation in-
dustry* in the United States has developed because of the need for prolonging
the life of wooden structural members mostly where contact with the ground is
intended. Wood is preserved by the injection of a variety of chemicals which
have fungicidal, insecticidal and fire retardant properties. Historically,
railroad ties, telephone poles, and marine pilings treated with creosote have
been the major products of the industry. In recent years, lumber and plywood
treated with leach-resistant preservative salts have experienced the fastest
growth. A listing of the various chemicals used in 1972 and the products
produced are presented in Table X.
The wood preservation industry provides the only major use for
creosote (other than fuel) and consumes almost a billion pounds of creosote
annually (Table XI). About 38 million pounds of pentachlorophenol--almost
8070 of the total amount produced—is also consumed in the preservation of
wood.
Certain inorganic products containing chromium, copper and arsenic
are also used in relatively large quantities for the preservation of wood.
As shown in Table; XI, the total amount of these products used in wood preser-
vation in 1972 amounted to 13.5 million pounds.
The production of treated wood is very responsive to the general
state of the national economy, particularly the health of the construction
industry. Production of treated wood decreased slowly, (1.27o) from 1968.
to 1971, but increased significantly (1.5%) in 1972. The total value
of all preserved wood produced in the United States in 1972 is estimated
to be over $450 million.
The volume of wood treated with creosote showed the largest de-
crease (11%) during the 1968 to 1972 period, and accounted for most of the
decrease in total production. Wood treated with pentachlorophenol increased
about 147o during the period, while that treated with inorganic preservatives
increased about 230%. Production of fire-retardant treated wood remained
Mr. Alexander Olisvewski, Technical Director of the American Wood Pre-
servers Institute, has generously provided much helpful information on
wood preservation.
36
-------
TABLE IX
INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USE OF HERBICIDES
FOR GENERAL MAINTENANCE OF GROUNDS^/
Compound
Chlorate-borate
TCA
Diuron
Animate
MSMA
2,4-D
Simazine
Bromacil
2,4,5-T
Dalapon
2,4-D and 2,4,5-T
Aminotriazole
Atrazine
Silvex
Krovar
Tandex
Paraquat
Tordon
Rate/Acre
(lb)
100
100
6
100
4
2
6
4
2
6
2
2
6
2
6
4
0.5
3
TOTAL
Acres Treated
(thousands)
100
34
300
10
250
500
100
90
100
30
90
70
20
30
10
10
40
6
1,790
Total Pounds
(thousands)
10,000
3,400
1,800
1,000
1,000
1,000
600
360
200
180
180
140
120
60
60
40
20
18
20,178
a/ Source: Dr. Dale W. Young.
37
-------
TABLE X
37 /
WOODEN MATERIALS TREATED IN THE UNITED STATES. BY PRODUCT AND PRESERVATIVE. 1972^-'
(Thousand Cubic Feet)
Lumber
Railroad
Preservative Poles Ties
Creosote and Creosote-Coal Tar 26,054 60,610
Creosote-Petroleum 376 25,070
Petroleum-Pentachlorophenol 45,230 79
to
00 Chromated Copper Arsenate 1,497 75
Fluor Chrome Arsenate Phenol - 45
Creosote-Pentachlorophenol 1,128 0
Chromated Zinc Chloride - 0
Acid Copper Chromate 0 Q
Fire Retardants 0
All Others
Totals 74,537 85,880
and
Timbers
11,869
1,020
16,394
22,187
4,440
83
918
1,913
4,250
858
63,950
Fence
Posts
6,591
752
9,924
753
27
0
0
0
-
-
18,175
Piling
13,362
200
239
486
19
0
0
0
0
17
14,324
Switch
Ties
4,702
1,215
50
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
5,971
Cross-
arms Other
373 1,890
254
2,093 1,786
618
0 938
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1,560
186
2,487 7,227
Total
125,453
28,887
75,795
25,633
5,475
1,211
918
1,913
5,815
1,433
272,551
Note: Components may not add to totals due to rounding.
-------
TABLE XI
WOOD PRESERVATIVES USED (1972)
Preservative
Organic Preservatives—
Creosote
Pentachlorophenol
a/
Amount Used in 1972 Change Since
(millions of pounds) 1968 (%)
970.0
38.0
-11
+14
37/
Inorganic Preservatives—
Chromated Copper Arsenate
Fluor Chrome Arsenate Phenol
Acid Copper Chromate
Chromated Zinc Chloride
All Others*
Total Inorganic
Preservatives
9.8
1.9
1.2
0.6
1.0
+230
-42
+12
-11
-5
14.5
a/ MRI estimates.
* According to a Koppers Company spokesman use of ammoniacal copper
arsenite is as great as that of acid copper chrornate and more than
that of chromated zinc chloride.
39
-------
essentially constant. These trends are expected to continue, except that
an increase in the production of fire-retardant treated wood is anticipated.
The wood preserving industry is composed of more than 400 small,
privately-owned companies with long-standing technology and largely de-
preciated plant and equipment. The top four producers account for about
35% of production and are owned by large, public corporations that are
primarily in the chemical and timber products business. The industry is
located primarily in the South and Northwest. A map showing the location
of wood treatment plants in the United States is presented in the section
of this report describing creosote (Case Study No. 20) in Chapter X.
A brief description of the various processes used to treat wood
is also presented in the case study for creosote. Also discussed in the
same section are some of the waste treatment problems that are encountered
in the preservation of wood.
Effluent limitation guidelines are presently being drafted for
this industry by the EPA. Dr. Warren S. Thompson of Mississippi State
University is directing this work. An economic analysis of the proposed
effluent guidelines is being performed by Arthur D. Little, Incorporated.
2. Railroads: Railroads are concerned with controlling vegeta-
tion along their rights-of-way. Vegetation control is mandatory on an
8 to 24-ft wide band centered over the rails. This control zone consti-
tutes a firebreak to protect adjacent properties from sparks thrown off by
the wheels of railroad cars. The faster the trains travel through an area,
the wider is the required weed-free area. In addition, weeds shorten the
life of railroad ties, can reduce traction for braking, reduce drainage,
and foul the ballast on tracks.
There are approximately 330,000 miles of track in the United States,
Three distinct areas on the track require weed control: the ballast, the
roadbed, and the right-of-way. The ballast is a strip 12 to 16 ft wide,
made of coarse material such as cinders or gravel, and is very porous. In-
soluble and contact herbicides are the most suitable for use on the ballast.
The roadbed and rights-of-way require soil sterilants to remove vegetation
and provide the firebreak mentioned above.
Many herbicide mixtures are used. The most common ones include
chlorate-borate mixtures, bromacil, MSMA, and 2,4-D. Some herbicides are
water soluble and leach well into the soil to control deep-rooted weeds.
Examples of water soluble herbicides are bromacil, chlorate-borate, TCA,
and dalapon. Other herbicides such as atrazine, diuron, and prometone are
not water soluble, and are suitable for use on the ballast. Often the
railroads use a combination of a soil-active, contact foliar, and selective
40
-------
herbicide, because application costs are high and they want to get as
complete sterilization as possible from each application. Fairly typical
combinations would be: chlorate-borate, MSMA and 2,4-D; and bromacil, MSMA
and 2,4-D.
Total acreage treated by the railroads with herbicides amounts
to about 1.6 million acres, which includes the tracks, the yards, and the
bridges and sidings. An estimated 20 million pounds of chemicals are used
annually for this purpose by railroads in the U.S.* The chlorate-borate
mixtures account for the majority of chemicals with an annual application
of about 12.6 million pounds. Other chemicals used in excess of 1 million
pounds are 2,4-D, MSMA and bromacil. Table XII lists the herbicides used
by railroads.
Application of the herbicides is generally done by application
companies, although some railroads, notably the Santa Fe and Union Pacific,
treat most of their own tracks. Application companies use High-rail
equipment that can run on rails with one set of wheels and on roads as a
truck. They can be operated by one man and do not require the use of a
train crew. Some of the leading application companies are:
R. H. Bogle Alexandria, Virginia
Nalco Chicago, Illinois
Habco Minneapolis, Minnesota
Namco Milpitas, California
Mobley Kilgore, Texas
In addition to herbicides, railroads are major users of creosote, as dis-
cussed in Section 1.
3. Utilities: The utility companies are concerned with controlling
vegetation along their rights-of-way. Utility rights-of-way include land
areas devoted to the transmission of communications, electrical power, gas,
and fluids such as oil, sewage, and water. Transmitting devices may be
underground, laid on the soil, or suspended overhead on poles and towers.
The land area involved is long and narrow--usually many miles long by 10
to 200 ft wide.
The rights-of-way may be located in isolated rural areas having
widely varying terrain, in heavily populated rural areas, or in urban
areas. Initial clearance of vegetation and woody plants is usually done by
mechanical means. Normally, trees are cut and burned; low lying vegetation
Data in this section were estimated by Dr. Dale W. Young.
41
-------
TABLE XII
ESTIMATED HERBICIDE USE BY RAILROADS-'
a/
Compound
Chlorate-borate
2,4-D
MSMA
Bromacil
TCA
Diuron
2,4-D + 2,4,5-T
Atrazine
Prometone
Krovar
Amino triazole
Dalapon
2,4,5-T
Tandex
Rate/Acre
db)
te 110
4
4
4
100
10
-T 4
10
10
6
j 2
6
10
4
Acres Treated
(thousands)
115
400
330
300
7
70
110
40
30
40
110
30
10
10
Total Pounds
(thousands)
12,650
1,600
1,320
1,200
700
700
440
400
300
240
220
180
100
40
TOTAL
1,602
20,090
a/ Source: Dr. Dale W. Young.
42
-------
is cut with tractor-drawn mowers, disced, chopped or root-plowed, and then
seeded to grasses and legumes.
After installing the transmission lines, the most common means of
controlling vegetation is by the use of herbicides. In the case of suspend*
utility lines, a critical control requirement is preventing trees from grow:
into or falling onto the lines. All utility rights-of-way must be kept clei
and the lines made readily accessible to work crews since inspection, main-
tenance, renovation, and repair must be performed without interference.
The types of herbicides used vary widely, depending on the site and the
plant species being controlled.
The most common herbicides used by the utilities are 2,4-D,
2,4,5-T, Ammate®, silvex, and Tordon®. Total herbicide usage by the in-
dustry is about 5 million pounds annually with 2,4,-D and 2,4,5-T accounting
for 707o of the chemicals used.* Ammate is used primarily when danger of
drift to agricultural crops is important. Table XIII lists the herbicides
used by utilities.
Application is generally made by contractors. Some of the
larger ones are:
Asplundh Tree Experts Jenkintown, Pennsylvania
Bartlett Tree Experts Stamford, Connecticut
Davey Tree Experts Kent, Ohio
Campbell Air Service Vivian, Louisiana
To achieve maximum efficiency with herbicides, the control pro-
gram used on a given site should take several factors into account: (1) the
locations of woody-plant problems; (2) the dominate species and relative
percentages of these species; (3) the densities of woody plant stands;
(4) the heights of woody plants; (5) accessability of areas to be treated;
(6) potential effects of treatment on vegetation and adjacent crops, fish,
and wildlife; (7) potential hazards to applicators; (8) prior treatments
with herbicides and results obtained; and (9) the objectives desired in
vegetation control. Applications of the herbicides used include foliar
treatment, basal-bark treatment, dormant-stem treatment, frill treatment,
injection technique, basal-soil treatment and pellets.
Approximately 1/3 of all applications in the utilities' industry
are accomplished by aerial spraying, mostly by helicopter. Ground applica-
tions are commonly performed using four-wheel-drive vehicles equipped with
300 to 400 gallon spray tanks, 20 gpm sprayers, and reels of 1/2-inch
* Data in this section were estimated by Dr. Dale W. Young.
43
-------
TABLE XIII
ESTIMATED HERBICIDE USE BY UTILITIES^/
Compound
2,4,5-T
2,4-D + 2,4,5-T
Animate
Silvex
2,4-D
Tordon
Rate/Acre
db)
6
4
100
8
4
5
Acres Treated
(thousands)
280
380
5
60
100
80
Total Pounds
(thousands)
1,680
1,520
500
480
400
400
TOTAL
905
4,980
a/ Source: Dr. Dale W. Young.
44
-------
diameter oil-resistant hose and spray guns. On accessible rights-of-way,
a cluster of jet nozzles mounted on a four-wheel-drive vehicle are used
to apply low volume sprays to 50-ft swathes of land; the effect is similar
to that obtained by spraying from a helicopter.
In addition to the herbicide usage, creosote and pentachlorophenol
are used to treat utility poles to protect them from destructive pests.
This use was previously discussed in Section 1.
4. Stored grains and feeds; The amount of grain stored commer-
cially in the United States fluctuates widely. For example, in recent
years, 300 million bushels of wheat have been stored annually, but in 1973
practically no wheat was stored because of the exceptionally large sales
to Russia. It is estimated that of all the grain stored in the United States,
65% is fumigated, 20% is treated with malathion, and the remaining 15%
(which represents mostly short-term stored grain) is not treated at all.
Of the grain that is fumigated, about 40% is fumigated with phosphine,
40% with liquid fumigants, and 20% with methyl bromide. The total use of
phosphine is about 97,000 Ib (phostoxin, AlP) at the present time, but is
growing at a rate of 25% per year. One pound of aluminum phosphide will
fumigate over 500 tons (17,000 bu) of grain. The liquid fumigants are based
mostly on carbon disulfide, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride. Methyl
bromide, the most widely used bromide fumigant, is used undiluted. Meth-
oxychlor has some use in treating bins before the grain is added.
The malathion is an emulsifiable spray and the grain is treated
prior to binning. The residual tolerance for malathion is 8 ppm, but
the tolerance may be lowered; this action might stimulate the use of
pyrethrin, which is small at present. All of the grain going to Russia
was treated with malathion; a 57% concentrate was applied as 1 pt in 5 gal.
of water per 1,000 bu of grain.
Grains are treated when placed in the bin except for soy beans,
which do not become infested. The malathion or pyrethrum treatment can
give 1-2 year protection, depending on the tightness of storage, humidity,
etc., but treatments are usually conducted more than once a year, especially
when insects are found. In general, stored grains are fumigated twice
yearly in the northern part (sometimes a third time) and three or four
times yearly in the southern part of the United States.
5. Food and beverage industry: The food and beverage industry
uses large amounts of fumigants*to control insect pests. Raw materials in
storage are fumigated as well as foods which become infested with insects.
Methyl bromide and phosphine (applied as aluminum phosphide) are the most
common fumigants used with foods. If the product or processing equipment
45
-------
absorbs methyl bromide (such as fat-containing or iodine-containing
products), then phosphine is used. Another space fumigant used in milling,
baking, and food-processing machinery is a mixture of 34% acrylonitrile
and 66% carbon tetrachloride (by volume).
Pesticides are used extensively to control insects infesting the
plant sites in the food and beverage industry. The biggest hazard in-
volved with the use of chemical pesticides is contamination of the food
products. Therefore, dursban diazinon, and pyrethrins are commonly
used because of their relatively low toxicity. Pyrethrin is used exten-
sively by bakers, dairies, and brewers. Korlan (Ronnel) is widely used
by dairies because there are fewer restrictions on its label. Baygon and
Entex (fenthion) are used in limited quantities. Brewers, particularly,
must guard against wild yeast growth in their equipment and lines; a
fluorosilicate is often used for this purpose.
The company may either do its own pesticide work, or contract
it to pest control operators (PCO). Bakers and bottlers do most of their
own work. Butchers, brewers, and dairies may do their own work or contract
it.
6. Professional pesticide application services:
a. Pest control operators; Pest control operators (PCO's)
are commercial firms that provide service for institutional, commercial,
industrial, and residential clients. Both insect and vertebrate pests are
controlled by PCO's using a wide variety of chemicals. (In this report,
PCO's are distinguished from lawn and tree service organizations, although
there is overlap between these organizations). Most of their work is done
indoors and is divided into two major categories — structural PCO's (exter-
minating, wood-destroying organisms) and general PCO's. Approximately
11,000 individual firms exist throughout the U.S. but about half of them are
one-or two-man operations. The two largest companies are Orkin and Terminex,
each having numerous firms located across the country. The total dollar
volume of the PCO industry in 1973 is estimated at $600 million of which
$30 million is represented by the cost of the pesticides employed.
Little quantitative information is available conerning the usage
of chemicals by these firms and the clients that they serve. About 30% of
the PCO's in the U.S. are members of the National Pest Control Association
in Washington, D.C. Dr. C. D. Mampe, Director of Technical Services for
NPCA, furnished the report of a survey they had conducted. Entitled
"Relative Importance of Insecticides Used Indoors11, this survey determined
the relative usages of different pesticides by PCOs in the past 9 years.
The survey results, presented in Table XIV, shows that Dursban, diazinon
and DDVP (dichlorvos) are the most frequently used insecticides.
46
-------
TABLE XIV
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE* OF INSECTICIDES USED INDOORS
by PCO'S from Survey of NPCA
Iniect Control Committees
387
YEAR
INSKCTICIDE
No. of PCO's in Survev
Dursban
Di.izinon Spray
DDVP Spray Additive
Chlordane Spray
Pyrethrins Sprays + Synergist
Caygon Bait
Pyrethrins + Synergist as
Spray Additive
Chlordane Dust
Baygon Spray
Kepone Pellets
Pyrethrins Spray
DDVP Spray
Pyrethrins Dust
Malathion Spray
Pyrethrins Dust + Synergist
Diazinon Dust
Kepone Paste
Paradichlorobenzene
Sevin Dust
DDVP Resin Strips
Pyrethrins Spray Additive
Silica Gel
Sodium Fluoride
SBP-1382
Phosphorus Paste
Dipterex Bait
Malathion Dust
Korlan (Ronnel)
Repellents
Naphthalene
Lethane
Dibrom
Baits
Dusts
Water Base Spray
Oil Base Spray
•Index Number •
1973
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.«
57
42
14
88
83
59
50
35
33
33
23
21
19
14
07
00
97
97
95
90
88
83
0.78
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
2.
1.
73
69
54
45
40
40
38
21
14
85
83
38
52
1972
2.46
2.48
1.85
1.48
1.54
1.46
1.35
0.93
1.61
1.07
1.37
0.89
1.06
1.09
0.80
1.26
0.83
0.65
1.04
0.98
0.87
0.76
1.02
0.41
0.28
0.37
0.33
0.52
0.17
0.11
0.06
1.81
1.98
2.74
1.81
ISfWpny
1971
38
1.63
2.42
1.95
1.84
1.34
1.60
1.16
0.95
1.60
1.03
0.79
0.97
1.18
1.13
0.74
0.84
0.63
0.60
1. 16
0.74
0.63
0.42
0.79
0.55
0.29
0.47
0.26
0.42
0. 13
0.03
0. 16
1.74
1.97
2.58
1.63
u»«d) +
1970
1.83
2.29
1.76
1.88
1.24
1.51
1.41
1.22
1.44
1. 15
1.02
1.00
0.78
1.15
1.07
0.83
0.88
0.76
0.85
1.02
0.95
0.59
0.76
1. 17
0.11
0.34
0.22
0.73
0.29
0.24
0.22
1.94
2.00
2.83
1.60
1969
1.21
2.79
1.84
1.74
1.40
1. 16
1. 16
0.81
1.30
1.19
0.74
0.86
0.88
1.09
0.91
0.95
0.91
0.51
1,05
0.66
0.77
0.60
0.86
1.05
0.23
0.30
0.42
0.40
0. 19
0. 19
0.21
1.77
1.84
2.49
1.42
t (Frequently used)
196H
37
2.70
1.78
2. 19
1.32
1. 16
1.41
1.11
1.24
1.46
0.46
1. 14
0.68
1.03
0.84
0.84
1.08
0.76
0.76
1.03'
0.59
0.68
0.97
1.14
0.22
0.41
0.54
0.35
0.24
0.24
0. 19
1.92
2.08
2.62
2.14
+ 3 (R
1967
37
-
2.81
1.57
2. 11
1. 14
-
1.22
0.94
1.54
1.70
0.73
1.00
0.54
1.05
0.57
0.73
0.81
0.78
0.49
1.00
0.68
0.65
0.97
1. 14
0..16
0.27
0.22
0.35
0.30
0.24
0.08
1.54
1.68
2.08
1.57
1966
36
2.88
1.81
2.06
1.56
-
1.39
1.00
1.53
0.83
0.67
1.39
1.14
1. 19
0.61
0.89
1.06
0.56
0.64
1.06
0.56
1.22
1.22
1.22
-
0.28
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.44
0.31
1.81
1.94
2.67
1.94
1965
2.
1,
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
33
-
,30
.55
24
-
-
-
33
52
18
-
55
-
15
-
67
91
85
58
-
-
46
24
03
-
70
24
55
36
45
21
-
-
-
-
etularlv used)
Number at ouestlonnatrea returned
47
-------
In regard to the clients served, a survey conducted by Avitrol
corporation at the NPCA convention in St. Louis, Missouri in 1972, revealed
that the types of accounts the PCOs handle break down into 46.3% for
residential work; 45.7% for commercial work; and less than 8% for agricul-
tural work. The survey also revealed that nearly 70% of the PCOs questioned
were involved in bird control work. The top three pest birds were pigeons,
sparrows, and starlings, with blackbirds, gulls, and crows next in order of
importance. Airports, railroad yards, bridges, and feedlots are areas that
frequently require bird control.
A wide variety of insects and vertebrates are encountered in
the institutional, commercial, and industrial sector served by PCOs. About
1/4 of their business in this area involves rodents, with most of the
remaining work involving the control of insects. The most important and
prevalent insects are roaches, termites, and ants.
The best information available on rodent control by PCOs has
been presented by C. D. Mampe.12' He presents the following facts:
Rodents controlled: A 1967 NPCA survey found that rodent
control involved Norway rats (437o); house mice (39%); tree squirrels (5%);
roof rats; and various other vertebrate pests of lesser importance such
as ground squirrels, moles, and pocket gophers.
Rodenticides used: In 1970, anticoagulants accounted for
95% of all chemicals used as rodenticides. Second was DDT tracking powder
and third was zinc phosphide. Strychnine, thallium sulfate, sodium fluoro-
acetate (1080), and phosphorus were used infrequently.
1970 market: About 27,000 servicemen were in the industry
in 1970. Twelve million pounds of bait were used (600,000 Ib of concen-
trate) by PCOs, accounting for 70% of the U.S. anticoagulant market. Con-
centrates are marketed as 0.5% with the exception of Diphacinone, which is
marketed as a 0.17» concentrate. Baits contain 57» concentrate, i.e. about
0.025% AI.
In the U.S. commensal rodents account for most of the problem.
Norway rats, house mice, and roof rats are the predominant commensal rodents.
Norway rats and house mice occur in the interior and northern parts of the
country, while the roof rat is established in the Southeast, Texas, southern
California and the coastal regions.
Industrial losses are of three general types: consumption
of foodstuff, contamination of foodstuff, and gnawing damage to miscellaneous
48
-------
objects. Rodents are a problem in nearly all phases of food processing,
especially milling and storing cereal grains and products. General ware-
houses and the shipping industry also must deal with rats constantly.
Although many food processors, warehousers, shipppers, and food handling
firms do their own work, PCOs serve many clients in this industrial-
commercial area. (A break-down between commercial and residential rodent
control is unavailable).
Insect control work involves primarily structural control of
pests which either damage or infest the structure. Termites, carpenter
ants, and powder post beetles are the predominate wood-destroying insects
encountered by structural pest control operators. Roaches, ants, spiders,
silverfish, beetles, and houseflies are types of infesting insects com-
monly encountered by general pest control operators.
The wood-destroying insects are primarily controlled by the
use of chlordane and aldrin (about 70% and 30% use, respectively) with
minor amounts of heptachlor and dieldrin also employed. Infesting insects
can be controlled by a variety of insecticides. The chemicals of choice
depend primarily on the "structural PCO" doing the work and his control
procedures. Some common insects are listed below with insecticides that
can be used to destroy them.
Roaches - Malathion, Diazinon, Ronnel, Dieldrin, Trichlorofon,
Baygon, Fenthion, Chlordane, Pyrethrum, Dichlorvos, Lindane, Kepone;
Ants - Chlordane, Dieldrin, Heptachlor, Aldrin;
•
Silverfish - Lindane, Chlordane, Malathion, Diazinon, Pyrethrum;
Beetles - Diazinon, Chlordane, Malathion, Lindane, Dieldrin,
Methoxychlor;
Houseflies - Diazinon, Ronnel, Malathion, Dimethoate (out-
doors) ;
Crickets - Pyrethrum, Chlordane, Lindane, Malathion, Diazinon.
The only other quantitative data for PCOs located during our
study came from the state of Kansas. Their annual report "Activities of
the Division of Entomology, Kansas State Board of Agriculture, Topeka,
Kansas, 1972"^P_/ summarizes the use of individual pesticides by PCOs in
1972. These data are given in Table XV. Chlordane is seen to be the most
popular, by far.
49
-------
TABLE XV
ESTIMATED INSECTICIDE USE BY PCO'S AND TREE SPRAYERS IN KANSAS, 1972
Chlordane
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Malathion
Carbaryl
Diazinon
Lead Arsenate
Methoxychlor
Fenthion
Dichlorvos
Chlorpyrifos
Toxaphene
Heptachlor
Baygon'S*
Dicofol
Azinphosmethyl
Chlorobenzilate
Tetradifon
Akton(5)
Benomyl
Pyrethrums
Dimethoate
Kepone^
Tree
Sprayers
573
48
2,764
20,371
791
7,410
5,282
182
18
1,255
500
318
91
79
9
36
9
General
Pest Control
Operators
14,716
83
656
18,497
42
11,597
3,330
1,425
1,266
593
17
33
19
2
Pest Control
Operators
Structural
Total
210,216
67,377
20,623
870
225,505
67,460
21,327
21,261
20,413
12,388
7,410
5,282
3,512
1,425
1,284
1,255
870
593
500
318
108
79
42
36
19
9
2
50
-------
The types of institutional, commercial, and industrial
establishments employing PCOs are not available statistically, and are
obviously too numerous to list here. These establishments may either
contract PCOs or perform the work themselves. If they do it themselves,
the chemicals used are purchased primarily from janitorial supply houses
and chemical firms.
b. Lawn and tree services; Pest control firms that take
care of lawns and trees are a separate group from PCOs (although many
firms providing diverse services would fall under both categories). There
are an estimated 15,000 individual firms providing lawn and tree care in
the U.S.
No statistical data is availabel to indicate how much of
their work is residential and how much is in the commerical-industrial-
instituttional sector. Their work primarily involves pest control in grass,
trees, and shrubs. Therefore, they differ from PCOs--particularly struc-
tural PCOs—primarily in that they use large amounts of herbicides. How-
ever, they also use insecticides to control lawn, tree, and shrub pests.
Lawn problems they encounter most often and the pesticides
employed are: (1) crab grass (dacthal and chlordane); (2) broad-leaf
weeds (2,4-D); and (3) sod webworms (diazinon, Dursban, and Sevin). Pests
commonly encountered in trees and shrubs are bagworms, beetles, mites,
scale insects, and aphids. Insecticides used to control these pests vary
widely, but most are the carbamate and organophosphorus compounds.
Amounts of insecticides used in the State of Kansas by
licensed tree sprayers was presented in Table XV.
c. Other professional applicators: In addition to the pest
control operators and lawn and tree services, custom applicators servicing
primarily agriculture also exist. Though custom applicators do not normally
do industrial or commercial work, they are included in this section because
they fall under the professional pesticide application services category.
Both ground and aerial applications are made to crops and orchards. Table
XVI lists the total pounds of technical product used in 1972 by custom appli-
cators in the State of Kansas.*
* The large amount of disyston reflects a wheat problem and is not repre-
sentative nationwide.
51
-------
TABLE XVI
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF INSECTICIDES USED
Insecticide
Di-Syston
Carbaryl
Parathion
Dimethoate
Toxaphene
Thimet
Furadan ''
Ethion
Aldrin
BY CUSTOM APPLICATORS
Pounds Technical
Used in 1972
229,158
161,889
128,345
95,520
92,629
62,095
48,752
26,186
18,128
IN KANSAS IN 197240/
Pounds Technical
Insecticide Used in 1972
Diazinon
Bux
Malathion
Methoxychlor
Dasanit
Heptachlor
Trithion
Systox
Endrin
13,842
10,272
8,642
2,647
2,041
1,224
861
359
319
52
-------
Some of the firms engaged in pest control work specialize in
one industry, such as railroads, or utilities, and some specialize in the
type of work they do, for example, ditching and irrigation contractors.
7. Janitorial supply services; Those firms which do not contract
pest control work, purchase many of the chemicals that they use from jani-
torial supply houses. There are approximately 5,500 of these janitorial
supply houses in the U.S. and they handle large volumes of pesticides. The
total dollar volume is estimated to be greater than that for the PCOs, but
the amounts of active ingredients are probably less since they handle primarily
ready-to-use pesticides (i.e., already formulated). In addition to selling
pesticides they sell disinfectants, sanitizing agents, cleaning agents,
etc., normally associated with janitorial work. Some of them are beginning
to offer pest control services on a limited scale, and this aspect of their
business is expanding.
Institutions and commercial firms such as restaurants and grocery
stores buy from janitorial supply houses. Pyrethrin and Diazinon (1/2%),
used as roach sprays, are the primary pesticides handled, but malathion
and others are also sold. Fly baits, rat and mouse baits, and residual
insecticides, such as Korlan, are also handled.
8. Textiles: Cotton textiles consume a greater quantity of in-
dustrial fungicides than any other product, with the exception of the wood
products. Tennis nets, fishing lines, sails, tobacco shade cloth', tarpaulins,
awnings, and tents must be protected because they are continuously exposed
to the weather. However, industrial filter cloths, shoe linings, diapers,
and umbrellas are also subject to biological deterioration. In 1970,
3.815 billion pounds of cotton were consumed in the United States and an
estimated 400 million pounds of this total was made into the above products.
An average (see below) of about l% of the cotton's weight is fungicide for
preservation. Thus about 4 million pounds of fungicides are used for this
purpose in the United States. The most important fungicides for this use
are the copper fungicides, with copper naphthenate having been used to treat
a greater quantity of cellulosic textiles than any other chemical or mixture.
The three most important compounds used in the protection of tex-
tiles and cordage, and representing ths major portion of fungicides used
in industry for this purpose are: 1) copper naphthenate, 2) copper 8-quino-
linolate, and 3) dichlorophene. The concentrations of each fungicide nor-
mally put in the fabric as a percent of the fabric's weight are, respectively:
1) 0.3-1.0%, 2) 0.15-2.0%, and 3) 0.5-2.0%. These compounds are typically
used to preserve commercial fishing nets, sand bag material, camouflage,
netting, cotton duck, and cordage from cotton, hemp, and manila. Copper
naphthenate is never used with fabrics which contact rubber because it
.catalyzes the oxidation of rubber. In these cases, zinc naphthenate is
commonly used.
53
-------
Institutional laundries formerly used phenyInnercurie acetate and
phenylmercuric propionate as fabric treatment in the final rinse cycle to
prevent mold growth in the storage and shipping of soiled linens, diapers,
and hospital clothing. Salicylanilide (Shirlan®) is used for stored fabrics
and can be washed out at the end of the storage period.
Other compounds used as textile or cordage preservatives include
copper oleate, copper tallate, copper resinate, hydroxy copper naphthenate,
copper 3-phenylsalicylate, cuprammonium carbonate, cuprammonium hydroxide,
cuprammonium fluoride, zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate, 2-mercaptobenzothiazole,
phenylmercuric acetate, phenylmercuric oleate, phenylmercuric triethanol-
ammonium lactate, tributyltin oxide, and various phenol derivatives.
9. Paint: Paints are composed of polymers and other ingredients,
and are applied as a film to a surface on site. The two main functions of
paint are appearance and protection. Fungicides are often added to paints
to prevent molding, mildew and fungus attack. Paints are formulated in
different ways depending on their intended use; some classifications in-
clude exterior building paints, interior latex paints, and marine paints.
At one time it was thought that mildewing of paint surfaces was
typical only in the warm, humid regions of the South, but examination of
painted surfaces around the country and in Canada showed that this was
not true; what was often thought to be dirt was actually mold. Many species
of fungi are found on paint films, but the most prevalent one by far is
P. pullulans. Aspergillus and Penicillium are found on indoor surfaces in
high humidity areas, such as in textile mills, locker rooms, and breweries.
Flavobacterium marinum is the most common bacteria found on deteriorating
paint films at the interface between the wood and paint, and this growth
is suggested as the cause of deterioration of paint films by peeling.
The most widely used paint preservatives are phenylmercuric salts
of various organic acids. The three more common compounds and types of paints
they are used in are phenylmercuric acetate (latex water-base), phenylmercuric
oleate (oil base), and phenylmercuric propionate (oil and water base). These
compounds are typicallly applied in the paint at a concentration of 0.01-
1.5% by weight. Two recently developed mercury fungicides that may be
used in paint are chloromethoxypropyl mercuric acetate and o-hydroxymercuri-
benzoic acid, cyclic anhydride. In addition to the mercurial compounds,
copper compounds, calcium carbonate, and barium metaborate are added to
paints to inhibit mold.
Latex exterior paints use the above compounds at a typical con-
centration of 1% to prevent mildew and mold. Interior paints do not use
mercury since it is toxic, and commonly use salicylanilide or organotin
compounds (tributyltin hydroxide and tributyltin acetate) because of their
54
-------
low toxicities. These compounds are less effective than the mercurials,
and the concentrations used in paints are often as high as 10%.
Marine paints are used to protect ships and boats. Regular
paints can be used to protect the ship in all areas except the bottom and
boot-topping, where the marine paints are used. The bottom is the portion
of the hull that is always under water, and subject to marine vegetable
and animal organisms. The boot-topping area is the portion of the hull
that is intermittently immersed and exposed to air, commonly known as the
"wind and water line". This area receives extreme exposure to the elements.
Marine paints use antifouling mercury and copper compounds, and
organotin compounds. The tributyltin formulation have been found to pro-
tect wood and metal boats against harmful marine organisms, and do not
corrode aluminum or steel. Tributyltin fluoride, bis(tributyltin) oxide,
and bis(tributyltin) sulfide are commonly used.
10. Water management; The industrial, commercial and institu-
tional uses of water generates many needs for water management: weeds,
insects, and fungus growths require control by herbicides, insecticides,
and fungicides. Weeds are troublesome in static water areas such as:
marinas; fish hatcheries; landscaping, recreational and settling ponds or
lakes; reservoirs and earth tanks; and in flowing water areas such as
ditch banks. Insects, particularly mosquitoes, create problems in static
water areas.
Control of algae and fungi is important in industrial processing
waters and in cooling towers. Algicides and fungicides are added to the
water to inhibit algal and fungal growth. Sodium pentachlorophenate, used
at an annual rate of 3 million pounds, is the most widely used compound.
The organotins also serve this purpose well; bis(tributyltin) oxide is a
common choice. The wood used in construction of cooling towers may also
be treated with the chromated preservatives, e.g. the CCA salts.
Weeds are by far the biggest problem, and can be divided into
three major groups: 1) floating, 2) submersed, and 3) emersed. Chemical
control of each group of weeds varies with the species involved.
Floating weeds germinate in the bottom of a ditch or standing
body of water, then become separated .and float. Common weeds in this
group are duckweed, water lettuce, water fern, water hyacinth, floating
alligator weed, and anchored floating-leaf weeds such as water lily and
water shield. These weeds and the herbicides commonly used to control them
are listed below.
55
-------
Weed Herbicide Application Rate (Ib A.I./acre)
Duckweed Diquat 0.5 to 1.0
2,4-D 2 to 4
Water lettuce, Diquat 1 to 1.5
Water fern 2,4-D 2 to 4
Amitrole-T* 2 to 5
Water hyacinth 2,4-D 2 to 4
Alligator weed Silvex 4 to 8
2,4-D 4 to 8
Water lily, 2,4-D 2 to 4
Water shield
Submersed weeds are those which are entirely under water. Common
species include pondweed, naiad, water milfoil, water crowfoot, waterweed,
water star grass, and the nonrooted species such as algae. Control tech-
niques vary depending on whether the water is static or flowing. Considera-
tion must be given to the toxicity of some of the herbicides used. In
ditches and streams where the water is flowing at 0.25 ft or more per
second, only aromatic solvents (methylated or chlorinated benzenes such as
xylene and trichlorobenzene) and acrolein provide satisfactory control.
Both aromatic solvents and acrolein are deadly to fish. In reservoirs
carrying water for industrial uses, copper sulfate is used at 0.6 to 1.0 ppm
concentration to control algae and rooted submersed weeds. In static water,
such as ponds and lakes, several chemicals are applied. The herbicides
commonly applied to control submersed rooted weeds are listed below:
Herbicide Application Rate
Sodium arsenite 2-10 ppm
2,4-D 20-40 Ib/acre
Silvex 2-4 ppm
Endothall 2-5 ppm
Dichlone 2-11 ppm
Dichlobenil 7-10 Ib/acre
Fenac 15-20 Ib/acre
Diquat 3-4 ppm
* Now banned in the U.S.
56
-------
Algae is controlled by copper sulfate (0.5-1.0 ppm); dichlone (0.2-0.5 ppm),
roccal (0.5 ppm), diquat (0.5-0.7 ppm), sodium arsenite (2-8 ppm), and
simazine (10 Ib/acre). Copper sulfate is the safest, most effective,
inexpensive, and extensively used algicide.
Emersed and marginal weeds are rooted below the surface, but rise
above the waterline. Common species include alligator weed, arrowhead,
bulrushes, burweed, cattails, emergent parrot feather, grasses, lotus,
pickerelweed, primrose willow, reeds, rushes, sedges, smartweeds, spatter-
dock, spikerushes, swamp loosestrife, water chesnut, watercress, water
lilies, water primrose, and water shield. The aquatic grasses, sedges,
cattail, and bulrushes are controlled by Amitrole-T (now banned) at 4 to
16 Ib/acre, 2,4-D at 4 to 8 Ib/acre, or dalapon at 10 to 30 Ib/acre. Most
of the other weeds are controlled by 2,4-D or Silvex at 2 to 8 Ib/acre.
Silvex is more effective than 2,4-D on alligator weed and spatterdock.
The quantities of the herbicides most widely used in water
management are estimated as shown in Table XVII (note that these data
would include management on government-owned waters).
Insects, especially mosquitoes, are a problem around water.
Mosquito control takes two principle forms: 1) chemical control of the
larvae, and 2) space spraying with mist blowers or thermal fog generators
to control adult mosquitoes. Larvicides commonly used are (1) No. 2 fuel
oil (15-25 gal/acre); (2) pyrethrum larvicides, such as a mixture of
pyrethrins, oil, and an emulsifier known as New Jersey larvicide; and (3)
various chlorinated hydrocarbons and organophosphates. A list of the
latter group follows:
Chemical Application Rate (Ib A.I./acre)
Abate 0.05
DDT 0.2
BHC 0.2
Chlordane 0.1
Heptachlor and
Dieldrin 0.1
Malathion 0.25-0.5
Adult mosquito control around water consists of spraying or fogging
when the adults are present. Various insecticides have given good control
when used in mists or fogs. Some of them are listed below with their
rates of application.
57
-------
TABLE XVII
ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER MANAGEMENT HERBICIDE USES/
Chemical
2,4-D
Dalapon
Animate
MSMA
Aminotriazole
Silvex
Diuron
2,4-D + 2,4,5-T
Atrazine
Bromacil
Paraquat
Rate/Acre
db)
3
20
100
4
10
4
10
T 4
10
5
0.5
Acres Treated
(000)
400
30
5
80
25
60
9
20
5
8
40
Total Herbicide
(million Ib)
1.20
0.60
0.50
0.32
0.25
0.24
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.02
TOTAL 682
3.39
a/ Source: Estimates by Dr. Dale W. Young.
58
-------
Application Rate
Chemical (Ib A.I./acre, except as indicated)
57o DDT 0.3 to 0.5
2.57, Chlordane 0.1 to 0.2
27o Lindane 0.1 to 0.2
37o Malathion 25 gal/linear mile
Naled 0.02
11. Commercial forests: Privately-owned forest land in the
United States totaled 545 million acres in 1964. Forestry statistics by
state show that only part of this land is under forest management, but
the amount being managed today has grown and continues to grow. Table XVIII
gives the data compiled in 1964*.
Forest management primarily involves providing favorable growing
conditions for desired species and controlling the forest-species composi-
tion. Measures to achieve the desired results include: thinning stands of
desired species; reducing shrub and unwanted small tree growth to prepare
for forest regeneration; treating to release seedlings or saplings of de-
sired species from other competing species; and killing cull trees and
trees of unwanted species in older stands. Many tracts of managed forest
will not need such measures, and mechanical means may be used rather than
herbicidal. However, every forest under management is a potential site
for application of weed-control measures at some time during the life of
the stand, and herbicides are usually the most effective and convenient
means of control.
Herbicide control techniques vary depending on the state of the
forest at the time of application. The forest may be established , may be
in the process of establishment, or may be going through a process of site
preparation prior to planting.
Site preparation usuallly involves one or more of the following
objectives: (1) removing brush, (2) removing physical obstacles, and
(3) preparing the ground for seeding. Mechanical means have an advantage
over herbicides in that the ground can be prepared while removing brush,
whereas herbicides leave dead vegetation that must normally be removed
either mechanicallly or by burning prior to seeding. Herbicides are used,
however, and the most effective and widely used chemicals are low-volume
esters of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Other chemicals used include silvex, Amitrole,
Source: State Forestry Statistics 1964, "Forests and Forestry in the
American States", National Association of State Foresters,(1968).
59
-------
TABLE XVIII
FORESTRY STATISTICS BY STATE, 19644.!/
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Area (in Acres)
of Privately Owned
Forest in State
21,742,200
40,000,000
3,200,000
20,757,000
17,391,000
12,275,000
1,973,000
391,000
19,600,000
25,772,000
1,088,900
15,823,000
4,082,000
2,595,000
1,664,000
11,446,000
16,038,000
17,169,000
2,563,216
3,200,000
19,120,700
17,062,000
17,193,600
14,996,300
15,727,000
1,050,400
109,000
2,120,000
5,848,000
12,000,000
430,000
19,341,400
5,396,000
5,600,000
26,613,000
15,000,000
430,000
12,886,345
1,900,000
13,432,400
12,294,442
3,854,000
4,163,522
15,450,000
19,490,000
11,423,000
15,396,000
4,900,000
Area (in Acres)
of Privately Owned
Forest Lands Over
100 Acres
15,236,800
1,240,000
112,500
13,056,000
7,670,000
1,457
832,000
.
17,100,000
19,844,979
Not Avail.
2,869,360
543,003
129,000
190,000
5,472,000
9,046,000
12,832,000
1,584,000
1,600,000
7,161,000
-
10,900,000
7,910,000
4,562,000
22,000
63,000
1,194,000
1,701,000
4,193,000
21,500
10,288,000
1,614,300
Unknown
6,011,000
5,267,000
195,000
8,933,000
120,000
3,442,000
Unknown
371,000
Unknown
2,830,000
8,483,000
8,097,800
5,127,000
389,000
7. of Forested
Area In Private
Ownership
95
1.7
4
86.2
46.3
36
92
-
82.5
93
54
14
93
98
100
94.7
98.8
90
88
67
44
90
89.3
30.9
91
70.6
88
41
76.5
70
91.6
94.5
90
38.7
78
92
91
28
89
93.2
10.2
90
90.1
50
90
41.4
17.7
% of Privately
Owned Forested
Area Under
Forest Management
50
None
50
28
76
3
20
30
34
2
60
15
45
Unknown
50
45
22
10
20
20
Not Avail.
15
70
10
25
8
10
25
54
10-15
10
13
80
9
5
55
25
40
93.8
25
30
25
60
15
27
16.8
60
-------
Amitrole-T, and phenoxy herbicides. Atrazine has been successfully used
in preparing sites for reforestation in the Douglas fir region in Oregon
and Washington.
Application of the herbicides is generally done by aerial spraying
since this method is effective, inexpensive, and suitable to mountainous
terrain and inaccessible areas. Phenoxy herbicides are applied at the
rate of 2 to 4 Ib in volumes of 4 to 10 gal. of spray per acre. The
carriers used are water, oil, or oil-in-water. Amitrole, atrazine, and
similar herbicides are applied at rates of 2 to 4 Ib/acre, using water
as the carrier.
Control during establishment of the forest species involves de-
stroying weeds and grasses which compete with the saplings for moisture,
and suppressing the foliage (overstory) of other trees to prevent shading
and damaging mechanical action. Weeds and grasses are generally controlled
with simazine or atrazine applied at the rate of 4 to 6 Ib/acre. Overstory
control depends primarily on the species being grown and the woody asso-
ciates requiring foliage suppression.
Established stands of conifers encounter the problem of encroach-
ment by undesirable hardwoods. These hardwoods compete with the conifers
for growth factors such as moisture, nutrients, and light. Hardwood con-
trol in conifer forests in the U.S. is most frequent in the pine stands
in the South, Douglas fir and pine in the West, pine in the Great Lakes
region, and pine and spruce in the Northeast. Silviculturally, the release
or weeding operation is considered selective, in that methods used are
designed to restrict the growth of competing undesired species, thus re-
leasing the favored species with little damage.
Methods used to control the weedy hardwoods with herbicides
include foliar applications, basal-bark treatment, and cut-surface treat-
ments. The cut-surface is a combination of mechanical and chemical techniques
generally classified as cut stump, frill-girdle, and tree injection. Foliar
applications are normally applied by helicopter or airplane. Basal-bark
treatment involves spraying the bark surface above the groundline, and is
used as a selective control of low-density scattered hardwoods. The cut-
stump method is merely cutting the tree down and spraying the stump. Frill-
girdle treatment involves cutting through the bark around the circumference
of a tree with an axe, and then herbicides are applied in the cut surface
immediately after girdling the tree. Tree injection is accomplished by
driving a chisel blade or automatic-metering hatchet into the xylem of the
tree, and then injecting the herbicide into the tree with a special device.
61
-------
The methods and the herbicides normallly used are listed below:
Method Herbicides
*
Foliar 2,4-D
Basal-bark 2,4-D
Cut-stump 2,4-D, Ammonium Sulfamate, Chlorophenoxy
Frill-girdle 2,4-D, Ammonium Sulfamate, Sodium Arsenite
Tree injection 2,4-D
Control of low-value conifers and thinning of dense stands is
also desirable at times. Herbicide selectivity is ruled out in this case,
since the low-value trees are normally the same species as the desired
trees. Hand-cutting is often used. Herbicides may be employed using the
cut-surface treatments, or substituted ureas (such as fenuron) are used as
spot treatments in thinning operations.
Control of undesirable vines and undergrowth is difficult. Herbi-
cides show the best promise in eliminating vines since mehcanical means of
cuttin, mowing, or disking them merely stimulate a resurge of stems through
sprouting or root-suckering.
Firebreaks are placed in commercial forests to prevent total de-
struction by fire. They are prepared by removing all flammable material
from strips of suitable width. If weed and brush accumulation must be
controlled, 2,4-D is sometimes employed along with mowing.
*
C. Discussion of the Usage of the 25 Intensive-Study Pesticides
Not all of the 25 intensive-study pesticides are used in the
industrial-commercial-institutional sector. Those presently having little
or no use are:
Insecticides - Carbofuran, Disulfoton, Methyl parathion, Parathion
Herbicides - Alachlor, Trifluralin
Fungicides and Wood Preservatives - Captan, Maneb
The pesticides used in this sector are listed in Table XIX along
with the total quantities consumed by industry, commerce, and institutions
in 1972.
62
-------
TABLE XIX
PESTICIDE USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL.
COMMERCIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR^/
Pesticide
Total
Insecticides
Aldrin
Carbaryl
Chlordane
Diazinon
Ma lathion
Toxaphene
Herbicides
1.7
1.0
6.5
1.2
4.0
1.0
Atrazine
Bromacil
2,4-D
Diuron
MSMA
Sodium Chlorate
1.7
2.3
6.0
3.8
4.0
19.0
Fungicides and Wood
Preservatives
Creosote
Pentachlorophenol
and sodium salt
970
47.5
Fumigants
Methyl bromide
p-Dichlorobenzene
Special Category
Organotin compounds
14.0
14.0
0.8
a/ Data in millions of pounds, AI,
Source: MRI estimates.
63
-------
VI. USE OF PESTICIDES BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
A. Introduction
Nearly 200 different pesticides are used by agencies of the
government at the federal, state and local levels. These pesticides are
used for a wide range of pest control purposes, including public health,
disease control, land and water management, and rodent or predator control.
However, information on the kinds and amounts of pesticides being used by
governmental agencies has not been available. The objectives of this task
of the present study were to compile information on use of all pesticides
at these three levels of government, to estimate the total use for the
25 intensive-study pesticides and the geographical distribution of use
where this use is significant. Examples of the kinds of pesticide use
that were anticipated for each of the three governmental levels are shown
in Table XX.
B. Federal Government Agencies
Pesticides are used by dozens of different agencies of the federal
government. Under current regulations each federal agency must request
approval for proposed pesticide usages each year. They do this by submitting
to the Federal Working Group on Pest Management, a detailed form (WGP Form 1)
that states the amounts each kind of pesticide proposed for specific appli-
cations. The form is supplemented (WGP Form 2) by descriptions of the
reasons why the pesticides are needed, the methods of application, precau-
tions that will be taken, alternative methods of control, and monitoring
procedures. A sample page from WGP Form 1 is shown in Figure 1.
The Federal Working Group on Pest Management (FWGPM) has cooperated
in the present study and has supplied quantitative information on proposed
pesticide usage by all agencies of the federal government for 1972. The
FWGPM reviewed all the WGP Form 1's in its files and compiled for each in-
dividual pesticide information on the agencies that proposed to use it, on
the state or region that the request originated in, and on the actual amounts
of active ingredient that the agency wished to apply. The FWGPM supplied
this information in a standard form for 188 individual pesticides, as shown
for the insecticide, Abate®, in Table XXI.
The 188 pesticides are listed alphabetically in Table XXII
together with the total quantities of active ingredients. Note that these
data are for proposed usage—not actual amounts used during 1972—and
represent a maximum amount. That is, an agency might use less than the
proposed amount for some reason, but it if wished to use a greater amount,
it would ordinarily amend its application during the year and this added
amount would be included in Table XX.
64
-------
TABLE XX
TYPICAL PESTICIDE USES BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
Federal Government Agencies
Public health programs of pest control
National forests, rangelands, parks
Military bases - insect and weed control; personnel protection;
protection of military buildings, supplies, food stocks, etc.
Pest control along coastal waters and navigable rivers
Predator control programs
Other pest control, quarantine, eradication or vector control programs
Protection of government owned buildings, facilities and goods or
supplies from pests (excluding pest control contracted to commercail
applicators, which will be covered in Task 3)
State Governmental Agencies
State owned buildings and grounds
Weed control along highways
Insect and weed control in state parks and lands
Water drainage district insect and weed control programs
Fish hatcheries
Special state pest control programs
Municipal. City. County and Other Local Agencies
City streets and boulevards, county roads
Public health programs including mosquito abatement
Park spray programs, particularly for Dutch elm disease, insect and weed
control
City or county owned buildings and grounds
Other local pesticide use programs
65
-------
CTi
WORKING CROUP ON PESTICIDES
PEST CONTROL PROGRAM REPORT
!•) Pi'OJFCT NO.
Ib) TARGET PEST
•rl PURPOSE
ID
VC-1
Anopheles
quadrimacu-
latus
mosquitoes
(Larvae)
Health
VC-2
Lotus
(Nelumbo
lutea)
Mosquito
control
(•) COMMON MAME
(O REGISTERED USC
AND REGISTRATION NO
111
Abate 4-E
4 Ibs./gal
2,4-D
4 Ibs./gal
(butyl
ester)
OR
(dimethyl-
amine
salt)
Tennessee Valley Authority
Environmental Research and Development
UAI C SUf.Mlt TCO
November 16, 1971
G. S. Christopher
KTS 205-383-4342
Rctcr lo attached' instructions tdore completing form. Be sure that entries are correctly alifncd floriionlnlly.
'•) FORM APPLIED rDu.t,
tin*. «». .1C )
(M USE STRCNCTH (11 OR
III
Solution
1.1327.
Solution
1 gal. to 12
gals, diesel
oil
OR
1 gal to
4 gals.
water
t
OTHER RATE
'«>
0.004 Ib.
OR
0.012 Ib.
in heavily
canopied
areas
1.0 Ib.
ester
OR
4.0 Ibs.
salt
4r0urvt, **re««f,
VLV. LV. ai/iorj
It)
Helicop-
ter
ULV
Helicop-
ter or
hand
sprayer
(•> ACRES OR OTHER UNIT
o.ur.. atttrt
III
People, food
crops, for-
age, or
pasture
Nontarget
vegetation
REMARKS
.) PRECAUTIONS TO BC TAKER
«l USE OF TRAINED/CERTIFIED
PERSONNEL
») OTHER
<•!
(b) Average 4
applications per
site per reser-
voir
(c) Applied and
supervised by
trained TVA
employees; re-
viewed by
biologists
(d) Periodically
monitored
(e) See WGP Form
#2
(a) Applied when
wind less than 2
miles per hour
(b) One
(c) Applied and
supervised by
trained TVA
employees
(e) See WGP Form
#2
Figure 1 - Sample Page of a Governmental Agency Report to FWGPM
-------
(42 /
TABLE XXI
SAMPLE PESTICIDE SUMMARY FROM FHGPH2£
Pusticide: Abate
Total pounds used nationwide: 26,934.8
Agency
Air Force
Air Force
Army - Civil Works
Army - Facilities Engineering
Army - Facilities Engineering
Army - Facilities Engineering
Navy
Navy
District of Columbia
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Sport Fishereis and Wildlife
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Sprot Fisheries and Wildlife
National Park Service
National Park Service
TVA
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Forest Service
Agency Total
State
Region
Canal Zone
Alabama,
Georgia,
Mississippi,
Texas
Maryland,
Delaware
North Carolina,
Virginia
New Jersey
CONUS
Southeast U.S.
East, South,
Southwest U.S.
Washington, D.C.
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Nebraska
Utah
New York
New York
Kentucky,
Alabama,
Tennessee,
Mississippi
Pounds AI Used
8
500
8.1
66.5
55
90
280
180
2,000
3.5
1,184
234
1,123
15,451
142
1,170
2,435
5
5
22.7
229
280
1,428
35
508
8.1
211.5
460
2,000
21,752.5
251.7
280
1,428
35
67
-------
TABLE XXII
a/
Pesticide
Abate
Acrolein
Alachlor
Aldicarb
Aldrin
Aluminum phosphide
AMA
Amitrol
Animate
Anthraquinone
Antymycin
Aromatic oils
Atrazine
Avitrol
Azinphosmethyl
Bacillus thuringiensis
Barban
Bayluscide
Benefin
Benomyl
Benzabor
BHC
Borate and borate
mixtures
Borax
Bromacil
Bromoxynil
BUX
Cacodylic acid
Cadminate
Calcium arsenate
Calcium cyanide
Calcium hypochlorite
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Carbon disulfide
Carbophenethion
Lb AI
26,935
953
883
3,750
965
6,000
900
31,541
206,733
403
153,355
806,110 gal.
65,803
501
4,404
151
96
1,900
11,060
1,162
1,280
302,338
266,600
68
46,227
219
150
32,323
871
846
1,863
1 oz
7,488
2,187,950
6
37 gal.
37,154
Pesticide
CDEC
Chelated copper
Chlordane
Chlorea
Chlorf lurecol
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorophacinone
Chlorothalonil
Chlorpyrifos
Ciodrin
Copper sulfate
Coumaphos
Cyclohexamide
Cyprex
Dacamine
Dalapon
Dazomet
DCPA
DDT
Def
Demeton
Diazinon
Dicamba
Dichlobenil
Dichloropropene
Dichlorvos
Dicofol
Difolaton
Dimethoate
Dinocap
Dioxathion
Dinitrophenol
Diphacinone
Diphenamid
Diquat
Disulfoton
Diuron
DNBP
Lb AI
8
sulfate 171,398
1,668,454
14,199
70
27
4
78
2,035
56
3,931,415
5,466
221
26
200
96,914
458
8,279
147,275
5,343
520
1,660,358
15,294
2,811
207,000
6,131
2,783
29
10,174
2,518
438
1
35
278
11,052
1,921
69,094
1,800
a/ Data adapted from Ref. 42.
68
-------
TABLE XXII (Continued)
Pesticide
DSMA
Dylox
Dyrene
Endosulfan
Endothall
EPIC
Ethion
Ethylene Dibromide
Ethylene Bichloride
Ethylene Oxide
Famphur
Fenac
Fenamine
Fensulfothion
Fenthion
Fenuron Tea
Ferbam
Flit MLO
Folex
Folpet
Fore
Furadan
Fumarin
Gardona
Glytac
Keptachlor
Imidan
Kepone
Kobun
Kromad
Lampricide
Lethane
Lead Arsenate
Lime Sulfur
Lindane
Malathion
Maneb
MCPP
Metaldehyde
Methoxychlor
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Bromide and
Chloropicrin
Methyl Parathion
Mevinphos
Lb AI Pesticide Lb AI
4,230 Mirex 106,092
100,023 Monitor 1,800
14 Monuron 153,098
190 Monuron-TCA 8,173
7,114 Morestan 100
374 MSMA 40,797
905 Naled 120,163
5 > Napthalene 7,567
60,903 Nemagon 6,020
31 Nicotine Sulfate 1
98 Norbormide 3
267 Norea 196
1,500 Paradichlorobenzene 6 gal.
7,350 Paraquat 4,181
32,674 Parathion 1,504
17 Paris Green 19,088
4,463 PCNB 72
256,933 Pentac 4
5,175 Pentachlorophenol 0.2
5,729 Phorate 5
1,381 Picloram 76,495
275 Pindone 22
17 Polyram 30
1,280 Prolin 2
2,09 0 Prome tone 43,719
13,077 Propachlor 6,719
450 Propanil 342
3,651 Propazine 108
25 Propoxur 14,303
273 Pyrethrum 214
101,300 Red Squill 12,075
30 f 1 oz Ronnel 293
167 Rotenone 22,283
2,138 Ruelene 1,050
3,103 Silvex 96,410
2,479,357 Simazine 34,875
21 Sodium Arsenite 4
8,002 Sodium Chlorate 161,328
2,904 Sodium Chromate 100
30,908 Sodium Fluosilicate 123
44,769 Sodium Monofluoroacetate 10
Streptomycin 0.5
46,330 Strychnine 15,486
6,063 Sulfuryl Floride 600
333
69
-------
TABLE XXII (Concluded)
Pesticide Lb AI
Sulfur 17,800
Tandex 29,060
TCA 89,949
Terbacil 240
Terrazol 13
Tetradifon 16
Thiodan 1,330
Thiram 13,136
Toxaphene 49,684
Trifluralin 937
2,4-D 2,637,971
2,2-D 300
2,4-DP 4,019
2,4,5-T 344,219
2,3,6-TBA 3,982
Vitavax 0.
Vorlex 120,000
Warfarin 200
Zectran 75,001
Zinc Phosphide 2,449
Zineb 2,388
Ziram 647
70
-------
Fifteen of the pesticides listed in Table XXII had proposed
usages of more than 150,000 Ib each. Table XXIII lists the amounts of each
of these 15 pesticides that were used by specific governmental agencies.
Note that these data include usage outside the continental United States;*
e.g., nearly all of the copper sulfate is used in Panama. The pesticides
in Table XXI include six of our 25 intensive-study pesticides. However,
all but one of the intensive-study pesticides had some use proposed by
federal governmental agencies.
C. State Government Agencies
Pesticides are used by several different agencies of state
government, but few states have compiled and published data on this usage.
On the present program, a survey has been made of pesticide usage by state
agenices in the 48 contiguous states. The survey procedure was as briefly
described below.
A list of the purchasing agents** for each state was obtained
from the Book of the States*** and a request for information was sent to
each. The request included a standard form on which pesticide usage could
be recorded. Also included was a sample copy of a completed form. Pur-
chasing departments that could not furnish the requested data were asked
to forward our letter to the appropriate agencies or to provide contacts
for us in those agencies. Copies of the letter, the sample form and the
list of purchasing agents are given in Appendix F. A follow-up letter was
sent to 26 purchasing agents that had not replied within a reasonable time.
An additional 19 letters were sent to specific departments suggested by
the purchasing agents.
Response to the survey was good; data were eventually obtained
from 35 of the 48 states (737o) . The amount and quality of the data varied
from state to state, however, for several reasons. In some states the pur-
chasing department keeps complete records of all pesticides used by state
agencies, while in others some or many of the state agencies may purchase
pesticides directly, and a central record file is either incomplete or non-
existent. Thus, the data reported represent minimum amounts purchased,
but time did not permit a determination of the degree of underreporting
that may have occurred. In addition, the data reported were not always in
* The FWGPM data in some cases may indicate the location of the pur-
chasing agency instead of the point of application.
** The title of this position varies in some states, e.g., it may be
Director of Supply, or Director of Purchasing and Property for
Printing, Service, Contacts, etc.
*** Published by the Council of State Governments.
71
-------
TABLE XXIII
Pesticide
AMOUNTS OF MAJOR PESTICIDES USED BY INDIVIDUAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Agencyl/ Lb. AI Pesticide Agency^/
Animate
ho
Antymycin
BHC
Borate and Borate Mixtures
Dichloropropene
Army - Civil Works
AEC
Air Force
NASA
Army - Facilities Engineering
Bonneville Power Administration
National Park Service
Forest Service
Bureau of Land Management
TVA
Total
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Forest Service
Total
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Forest Service
GSA
National Park Service
NASA
APHIS
Army - Civil Works
D.C., Government
Total
FAA
Bureau of Reclamation
Air Force
Army - Facilities Engineering
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Panama Canal Company
Total
APHIS
Agriculture Research Service
Total
153,335
20
153,355
294,030
3,000
2,200
1,742
665
653
44
4
302,338
135,000
72.000
207,000
Carbaryl APHIS
Air Force
Forest Service
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Army - Facilities Engineering
AEC
Navy
Panama Canal Company
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Soldiers Home
Army - Civil Works
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Agriculture Research Service
GSA
FAA
NIH
NASA
Bureau of Prisons
D.C., Government
U.S. Postal Service
TVA
National Park Service
Maratime Administration
Total
Chlordane Air Force
APHIS
Army - Facilities Engineering
NASA
Army - Civil Works
National Park Service
Panama Canal Company
GSA
Navy
Bureau of Prisons
FAA
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Department of Transportation - Coast Guard
B.C., Government
Lb. AI
1,249,278
713,179
100,410
35,258
20,000
18,844
17,857
15,282
4,500
3,000
2,750
1,624
1,506
1,484
1,200
936
380
271
100
67
14
2,187,951
1,069,093
204,300
123,163
93,688
61,594
56,500
22,102
14,569
7,025
6,325
2,248
1,644
1,215
1,000
Source- Data adapted from Ref. 42.
-------
Pesticide
Chlordane
(Concluded)
TABLE XXIII (Continued)
Lb, AI Pesticide
Agency^/
Bureau of Indian Affairs
TVA
AEC
U.S. Soldiers Home
Forest Service
NIH
U.S. Postal Service
FHA
FDA
Total
Copper Sulfate Panama Canal Company
Bureau of Reclamation
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Bureau of Indian Affairs
AEC
Navy
Forest Service
880
752
699
576
555
375
100
40
12
LO
2,4-D
Total
1,668,455
3,906,114
19,559
4,471
654
433
126
59_
3,931,416
Army - Civil Works 992,469
Forest Service 838,737
Veterans Administration 200,000
Bureau of Land Management 149,950
TVA 147,556
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 93,812
Bureau of Indian Affairs 69,572
Bonneville Power Administration 52,680
Bureau of Reclamation 36,443
GSA 28,940
NASA 11,108
APHIS 8,643
D.C., Government 4,000
Air Force 1,769
AEC 900
Navy 440
Coast Guard 300
FAA 216
U.S. Soldiers Home 200
Bureau of Prisons 150
Agriculture Research Service 56
FHA 20
Smithsonian Institute 6
U.S. Postal Service 5
Total 2,637,971
Diazinon GSA
Air Force
Army - Facilities Engineering
Coast Guard
Army - Civil Works
Bureau of Reclamation
Panama Canal Company
D.C., Government
Veterans Administration
National Park Service
Bureau of Prisons
Indian Health Service
AEC
St. Elizabeths Hospital
Bureau of Indian Affairs
NIH
NASA
Smithsonian Institute
U.S. Postal Service
APHIS
FDA
FAA
Maritime Administration
Department of Transportation - St. Lawrence
Seaway
Forest Service
U.S. Soldiers Home
Department of Transportation - Transportation
Systems Center
Total
Flit MLO Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
National Park Service
Army - Civil Works
NASA
Total'
Lb. AI
740,991
620,562
271,555
11,229
3,958
3,293
1,954
1,680
1,577
1,026
807
609
250
245
196
182
79
38
33
30
26
24
8
3
1
1
1,660,358
200,566
28,107
14,760
13.500
256,933
-------
Pesticide
Malathion
TABLE XXIII (Concluded)
Lb, AI Pe3ticide
APHIS
D.C., Government
Navy
Army - Facilities Engineering
Air Force
Army - Civil Works
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Department of Transportation - Coast Guard
NASA
Bureau of Prisons
FAA
Indian Health Services
Agriculture Research Service
Forest Service
GSA
U.S. Soldiers Home
St. Elizabeths Hospital
NIH
Bureau of Reclamation
Panama Canal Company
Bureau of Land Management
Veterans Administration
FHA
Smithsonian Institute
TVA
National Park Service
U.S. Postal Service
Maritime Administration
AEC
Total
1,784,480
436,877
90,320
68,474
32,673
22,356
12,815
10,751
4,766
3,812
2,163
2,046
1,888
1,500
1,383
1,377
523
451
225
170
126
62
50
24
15
11
10
&
2
2
2,479,358
Monuron
Sodium Chlorate
2,4,5-T
FAA
Army - Civil Works
Bonneville Power Administration
Air Force
Bureau of Reclamation
AEC
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Veterans Administration
GSA
Total
FAA
Bonneville Power Administration
Air Force
Army - Civil Works
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
NASA
Forest Service
Bureau of Reclamation
TVA
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Total
Forest Service
FHA
TVA
APHIS
D.C., Government
Bonneville Power Administration
Air Force
Navy
Army - Civil Works
Agriculture Research Service
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Total
Lb. AI
54,244
46,040
25,000
17,760
5,603
2,800
1,080
450
123
153,100
56,469
49,500
33,976
8,165
7,840
2,220
1,535
1,136
347
139
161,328
258,481
31,250
24,168
11,525
7,520
5,370
3,600
940
829
500
36
344,219
a/ AEC - Atomic Energy Conmission
APHIS - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA
FAA - Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation
FDA - Food and Drug Administration
FHA - Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation
GSA - General Services Administration
NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NIH - National Institutes of Health
TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority
-------
terms of pounds of active ingredients; e.g., in some cases only the number
of gallons purchased were noted. In such cases we have calculated the
amount of AI based on the concentrations most frequently reported by other
state or city agencies.
Special mention must be made of California; that state did not
supply data on pesticide use by state agencies, but instead referred us to
the California Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Use Report for 1972.
This report tabulates data on usage in the state* and in some cases by
the agency reporting. Based on the data in this report we have estimated
pesticide use by California state agencies. In this case, our data are
probably biased on the high side because usage by some nonstate agencies
were included,** and the end-use was not always clear. On the other hand,
some use on state premises may have been neglected, e.g., applications of
pesticides on state lands or premises by private operators.
The total amounts reported by individual states for each of the
25 intensive-study pesticides are listed in Table XXIV; Figures 2, 3 and
4 illustrate the geographical distribution of this reported use for in-
secticides, herbicides and other pesticides respectively. Additional data
on other pesticides with substantial use by state agencies are discussed
in Section F of this chapter.
Herbicides and insecticides are the principal pesticides used by
state agencies. Herbicides are used primarily for vegetation control along
highways, and insecticides are used for public health purposes. Lesser
amounts of herbicides are used in the maintenance of state government
buildings and grounds, state parks, and state schools and universities.
Rodenticides are also used to control pests which pose potential health
hazards. Pesticide usage was largely by the following departments:
(1) highway; (2) transportation; (3) health; (4) park and recreation;
(5) forestry; and (6) fish, game and wildlife. The two most predominantly
used pesticides were malathion and 2,4-D.***
* The results of the California report are presented in Appendix B.
** Categories included in the California report were: state highways,
water resources, water areas, vector control, University of
California, county roads, county or city parks, county agricultural
commissioner, and "other agencies" (excluding federal agencies,
city agencies, school districts and irrigation districts).
*** Reported 2,4-D usage was 321,000 Ib AI, although sodium chlorate use
was greater, 341,000 Ib AI. However, California usage of sodium
chlorate was 337,000 Ib which accounted for 99% of the total.
(California data are discussed separately below.) Therefore,
2,4-D is the more representative pesticide nationwide.
75
-------
TABLE XXIV
USAGE OF 25 INTENSIVE-STUDY PESTICIDES REPORTED
BY STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
(Pounds Active Ingredient)
Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Maine Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota .Montar.a
ON
Aldrln
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Chlordane 63
Diazinon
Dlsulfoton
Malathion
Methyl Parathlon
Parathion
Toxaphene
Alachlor
Atrazine
Bromacll 6,280
2,4-D
Diuron
MSMA 70,480
Sodium Chlorate
Trifluralin
Captan
Creosote
Maneb
Pentachlorophenol
Tin Couipounds
p-Dichlorobenzene
Totals: 76.823
4,565
5,787
20,692
9,642
380
13,437
421
216
2,939
70
68,946
96,003
86,089 1,601
38,960
117,946
337,456
6,641
6,550
158
166
65,576
882,640 1,601
638 13,232 235 15 480 393
390
326 6 20 699
104 140 145 59
5 1 195
1,593 824,795 9 763 105 1,088 90
300
320
476 4 800 1,400 339 500 344
6,180 17 120 1,000
1,948 44,920 120 15,341 4,096 2,300 60 30,087 356 .14,136 15,460
22,640 560 80 184 40
1,774 1,400
400 2,940
25 70
546 300
1,540
43,282
5,956 955,074 0 140 18,830 5,101 3,580 5,280 1,735 33,759 1,597 14,676 15,804
-------
TABLE XXIV (Concluded)
New New
Nevada Hampshire Jers
North Rhode South South
New Mexico New York Dakota Pennsylvania Island Carolina Dakota Tennessee Texas Virginia Washington Wisconsin
Totals
Aldrin
Carbaryl 35 36,960 132,280 61,400
Carbofuran
Chlordane 29 1 650
Diazinon 120 16
Disulfoton
Malathion 1,350 17 19,508 1,943 25 112,875 125 25
Methyl Parathlon
Parathion 12
Toxaphene 60
Alachlor 180 760
Atrazine 560 640 1,454
Bromacil 600 320
2,4-D 804 24,640 4 17,160 2,180
Dluron 12,640 18,842
MSMA . 18
Sodium Chlorate
Trlfluralln 41 12
Captan 14 160
Creosote
Maneb
Pentachlorophenol 132
Tin Compounds
p-Dichlorobenzene 607
Methyl Bromide 3.224
125 175 485
610
10 2
26 51
180
950 845 945
1,784
7,448 5,400
340 2,818
34,590 18,818
29,200 195
150
15
240
160
4,565
252,240
1,000
22,498
10,303
761
980,488
421
228
3,299
3,114
104 88.4151/
113,678
5,960 320,6702''
123, 34 L!/
191,768
340,796
6,804i/
7,810
0
1.858
298
0
607
112,082
Totals:
1,350 107
36,960 152,592
37,880 2,688
36,002
61,425 118,251 1,205 3,963
10 1,565
75,102
28,885
6,064
aV Received too late to be included in the totals:
Iowa Michigan Utah Totals
2,4-D 3,520 39,300 220 43,040
Atrazine 3,200 3,200
Diuron 3,120 3,120
Trifluralin 34 34
-------
A. INSECTICIDES
No Survey Report
No Usage Reported
Usage S 5,000lb. A.I.
Usage S 100.000Ib. A.I.
Usage > lOO.OOOIb. A.I.
Includes the following: Aldrin,
Corbaryl, Carbofuron, Chlordone,
Diazinon, Disulfoton, Molothion,
Methyl Parathion, Parothion, and
Toxaphene.
B. CARBAMATES and ORGANOPHOSPHATES
Includes the following: Carbaryl,
Carbofuran, Diazinon, Disulfoton,
Methyl Parothion, and Parathion.
iZA Usage < l.OOOIb. A.I.
LJ Usage iSO.OOOIb. A.I.
f-V.
Usage >50.000lb. A.I.
Figure 2 - Use of Intensive-Study Insecticides by State Agencies
78
-------
^
^>
J>
,v
^ ^
^
- ^^ -7 ^
> ^ ^ ^ o^
.'^•^^r>
-------
,
.6u,Mo((0;» aH4 S9pnpj
o
00
-------
As indicated in Figures 2, 3, and 4, insecticide and herbicide
usages were quite general, but fungicides and wood preservative use was
mostly limited to the eastern and southern areas of the continental United
States.
In regard to herbicide use, the north central to northwest regions
used predominantly atrazine, whereas bromacil was applied to a greater
degree in areas with relatively less atrazine usage. In general, herbicides
were applied in greater amounts in the less populated areas. In less popu-
lated areas there are greater proportions of state and county parks, wild-
life preserves and more nonurban highways.* These areas account for the
increased herbicide usage in the government maintenance programs in less
populated areas.
D. Municipal and Local Government Agencies
Pesticides are used by many agencies of municipal, county and
other local government. A survey has been made on this program of pesticide
use by 50 municipalities that were selected as being representative of
population distribution and geographical location. The cities surveyed
are indicated on the map in Figure 5. The survey procedure was similar to
that used in the state agency survey; a letter, standard form and sample
completed forms were sent to the purchasing department of each of the
cities. Follow-up letters were sent to cities that had not responded
within a reasonable time, and in a few cases referral contacts were made.
Twenty-two of the cities (4470) responded to our survey; the cities
which responded are indicated in Figure 5. We believe that the lower per-
centage of returns compared to the state surveys reflects the degree to
which the city purchasing departments have the requested data available.
A preliminary discussion with the purchasing department of Kansas City,
for example, revealed that it processed pesticide orders like all others,
and did not have the manpower to extract the requested data from its
records. This factor appears to account for the poor response from the
larger cities; no replies were received from New York, Chicago, Detroit,
Houston, Washington, D0C., San Francisco and New Orleans, for example.
(However, replies were obtained from Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore
and Dallas.) The purchasing departments which responded either supplied
data or forwarded our request to a pertinent department (e»g., departments
of parks, health, public recreation, environmental management, etc.) which
did supply partial or complete data for city usage. The quantities of
See Section E, this chapter, for a further discussion of herbicide
usage on highways.
81
-------
iioux aVeovLr\^^--r--/C^ ^Philadelphia.
rs J ru:^~~~'*Cleveland n Pittsburgh^
Des| Chicago |\ ^ Ln , .
.,.",,. l .. \ O l\> l/7«<1r*(Ba!timore
— Momes Indianapolis I ColumbusJSV .^Washington D.C.
w irtlA —' ./ ^P& _ _ _ ^
Casper
O
Cheyenne
^^^^
COLORADO
• Colorado
Springs
IE* MEXICO
Albuquerque
O No Response
• Questionnaire Answered
Miami
Figure 5 - Cities? Surveyed for Pesticide Usage
-------
pesticides thus reported-' represent minimum usages for these 22 cities
and the total actual usage could be substantially higher.
Quantities of the 25 intensive-study pesticides that were re-
ported by responding cities are listed in Table XXV. The totals are es-
pecially low because of the absence of replies from so many of the large
cities (However, Cincinnati, Denver and Louisville reported no substantial
use of any of the 25.)
Although the response was relatively poor and the amounts reported
were minimums, the survey indicates that the use of pesticides by all munic-
ipal governments is probably small compared to pesticide usage by state
governments.
Those municipalities which did reply, reported that pesticides
were used primarily by the parks and recreation departments (for turf
disease and weed control), the health department (for control of rats and
mosquitos along with general insect control), and for the maintenance of
city owned buildings and grounds. In addition to the fairly consistent
herbicide, insecticide, and rodenticide usage, a few cities used fungicides
and algaecides, and one had a pest bird program.
The pesticide having the most frequent and largest city usage
was malathion. Most of the cities responding had a mosquito control pro-
gram and employed a malathion spray almost exclusively in this health
related program.
E. Governmental Use of Herbicides on Highways and in Water Management
Substantial amounts of herbicides are applied in highway main-
tenance and water resources management--two areas that are primarily
governmental uses, but cross the boundaries between federal, state and
local agencies. Special estimates of herbicide usage in these areas have
been made on the present** program and are reported here.
Highways: Herbicides are used on highways for three major pur-
poses: (a) safety (e.g., complete vegetation control around signs, guard-
rails, and at the edge of the pavement; also, brush control around corners
or along narrow rural roads); (b) roadbed maintenance (e.g., a pretreatment
* The pounds of AI was not reported in some instances and was estimated
based on the units that were reported and a knowledge of the most
frequently used formulations.
** Our consultant, Dr. Dale W. Young, an expert in nonagricultural herbi-
cide use, has compiled the highway herbicide data.
83
-------
TABLE XXV
USAGE OF 25 INTENSIVE-STUDY PESTICIDES REPORTED
BY MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
(Pounds Active Ingredient)
Colorado
Albuquerque, Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Bismarck, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Springs, Dallas, Denver,
North Dakota New York Ohio Colorado Texas_ Colorado
Des
Moines, Ft. Worth,
Iowa Texas
Aldrin
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Chlordane 224 56
Diazinon 386 26 32
Disulfoton .
Malathion 1,120 288 550 75^' 1,500 10,185
Methyl Parathion
Parathion
Toxaphene
Alachlor 752'
Oo Atrazine
Bromacil 45
2;4-D 92 200 800
Diuron
MSMA 360
Sodium Chlorate
Trif luralin
2
183
200 165
131
24
Captan
Creosote
Maneb
Pentachlorophenol
Tin Compounds
Para-dichlorobenzene
Methyl Bromide
71
Totals
1,120
568
288
1,160
350
1,500
26
800
10,273
200
505
-------
TABLE XXV (Concluded)
Lincoln, Louisville, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, St. Louis, San Diego,
Nebraska
Kentucky
California Florida Wisconsin
Captan
Creosote
Maneb
Pentachlorophenol
Tin Compounds
Para-dichlorobenzene
Methyl Bromide
Totals
5,090
1,129
638
0.25
235.25
Oklahoma
Aldrin
Carbaryl 1,110
Carbofuran
Chlorodane 280
Diazinon
Disulfoton
Malathion 2,500
Methyl Parathion
Parathion
Toxaphene
Alachlor
Atrazine
Bromacil
00 2,4-D 1,200
Diuron
MS MA
Sodium Chlorate
Trif luralin
89
62 38 4
397 220 10
24 20
300
164 60 219
160
136 20
97
120
80
35
Pennsylvania Arizona
Missouri California
Totals
1,200
500
13
50
235
1,700
74 64
72
404 80
985
280
0.185
0
2,659
0
932
2,000
0
17,913
0
0
300
75
oJi/
69
3,065-f
160
516
97
71
0
0
0
0
0
0.435
63
1,463.185 496
27,857.435
a/ Relative proportion was not noted. It was therefore considered to be a 1:1 mixture.
b_/ Received too late to be included in the totals:
Atrazine
2,4-D
Trlfluralin
Seattle. Washington
26.3
4
1.7
-------
of simazine or TCA where less than 4 in. of asphalt is laid); and
(c) general highway beautification (e.g., brush and broadleaf weed control
along highways).
Although federal, state and local highways arid roadways are
treated, the state highway departments apply most of the herbicides. This
is primarily due to the fact that state highway departments maintain both
federal and state highways. Furthermore, more herbicide is used because
these highways are wider and are treated more often than local roads. An
estimated 1 million miles of state and federal highways are treated, and
the right-of-way that is treated often amounts to 30 acres per mile on
interstate highways. In contrast, the estimated 2 million miles of treated
county highways have narrower rights-of-way and the estimated 1 million
miles of treated township roads have even smaller rights-of-way, amounting
to as little as 0.5 acre per mile.
The herbicide selected and the application rate will depend, of
course, upon local conditions and control desired. Thus, substantial
differences in herbicide use practice occur between different areas. The
total estimated usage for the 18 major highway herbicides are given in
Table XXVI.
Water management: Herbicides are used in the management of
vegetative growth in water for several purposes, both in industrial-com-
mercial sectors and in the governmental sector. Weeds or brush growing
in irrigation canals may restrict the flow of water and increase losses
by transpiration, those in drainage ditches may cause flooding, and those
in streams and lakes may decrease recreational value or restrict naviga-
tion (e.g., in Louisiana, where much local traffic is by boat). An
estimated 682,000 acres of waterways are treated with herbicides annually
(including an estimated 60,000 miles of irrigation canals in the western
U.S.), but the proportion of this that is in governmental sectors is
uncertain. The estimated amounts of the 11 major herbicides that are
used in this application are shown in Table XVII in Chapter V.
F. Summary of Governmental Pesticide Usage
Table XXVII gives a summary of governmental agency usage of the
25 intensive-study pesticides. The estimated total governmental use is a
composite of reported federal usage within the continental states,* usage
plus estimated total state and city usage.
For example, approximately 39,000 Ib AI of malathion, listed as having
"worldwide" usage were not included.
86
-------
TABLE XXVI
ESTIMATED TOTAL HIGHWAY HERBICIDE USE-
a/
Compound
Rate/Acre
Acres Treated
(000)
Total Herbicide
(million lb)
TCA
MSMA
Chlorate-borate
Animate
2,4-D
2,4-D + 2,4,5-T
Dalapon
Simazine
Diuron
2,4,5-T
Atrazine
Aminotriazole
Prometone
Bromacil
Silvex
Tordon
Tandex
Paraquat
100
1.5
100
100
1
1
10
4
10
1
4
4
4
4
1
6
4
0.5
Total
40
2,220
20
20
1,800
1,000
50
120
40
300
75
60
50
50
150
20
10
60
6,085
4.00
3.33
2.00
2.00
1.80
1.00
0.50
0.48
0.40
0.30
0.29
0.24
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.12
0.04
0.03
17.08
a/ Source: Dr. Dale W. Young.
87
-------
00
oo
TABLE XXVII
DOMESTIC USE OF 25 INTENSIVE-STUDY PESTICIDES BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES!/
State Agencies
Pesticide / Federal Agenices
Aldrin
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Chlordane
Diazinon
Disulfoton
Malathion
Methyl parathion
Parathion
Toxaphene
Alachlor
Atrazine
Bromacil
2,4-D
Diuron
MSMA
Sodium chlorate
Trifluralin
Captan
Creosote
Maneb
PGP
Tin Compounds
Para-dichlorobenzene
Methyl bromide
Totals
907
1,016,848
281
328,107
767,377
1,796
695,085
6,063
1,495
30,084
883
58,707
36,327
1,708,824
32,165
37,677
145,109
894
7,355
0
21
< 1
--
6 gal.
43,053
4,899,058
Reported
in Survey
4,565
252,239
1,000
22,498
10,303
761
980,488
421
228
3,299
3,114
88,415
113,678
320,610
123,341
191,768
340,796
6,804
7,810
0
1,858
298
0
607
112,082
2,586,983
Estimated
Total
6,253
345,533
1,370
30,819
14,114
1,043
1,343,134
577
312
4,519
4,266
121,116
155,723
439,192
168,960
262,696
466,844
9,321
10,699
—
2,545
408
—
832
153,537
3,543,813
Municipal
Reported
in Survey
0
2,659
0
932
2,000
0
17,913
0
0
300
75
0
69
3,065
160
516
97
0
71
0
0
0
0
0
< 1
27,857
Agencies
Estimated
Total
•*••
29,220
—
10,242
21,978
—
196,846
—
—
3,297
824
--
758
33,681
1,758
5,670
1,066
--
780
--
—
--
--
—
5
306,125
Estimated Total
Governmental Use
(million Ib)
0.008
1.5
0.002
0.5
0.8
0.003
2.2
0.007
0.002
0.04
0.006
0.3
0.3
3.0
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.01
0.02
0.5
0.003
0.001
0.00
2.0
0.2
13.8
_a/ Source: MRI survey and Ref. 42.
b/ Data are in pounds except as noted.
-------
The total pesticide figures for state usage were calculated from
the reported pesticide usage by extrapolation on the basis of the relative
populations of the reporting states (148,237,000) to the total U.S. popula-
tion (203,185,000). Similarly, total municipal usage was calculated by ex-
trapolation from the reported usage on the basis of the populations of re-
porting cities (13,537,000) and the total urban population in the U.S.
(149,237,000). All population figures were from the 1972 World Almanac.
The accuracy of this extrapolation method is uncertain, but it is as good
as the reported data will allow. This method should also help take into
account the nonmunicipal local government pesticide usage that was not
directly covered in our survey. The sum of the estimated usage figures were,
for a few pesticides, adjusted on the basis of other data to what we believe
is a more accurate total. For example, para-dichlorobenzene's lavatory-
space deodorant usages were probably not considered pesticidal, and con-
sequently were not reported by city, state or most federal government agencies;
the total given is supported by industry sources.
The total of 13.8 million pounds for use of the pesticides shown
in Table XXVII by government agencies constitutes about 1% of the total
domestic use of 24 of the pesticides, with creosote excluded.
In some instances, only very small amounts of the 25 intensive-
study pesticides were reported, but substantial usage of other pesticides
was noted. Texas, for example, reported usage« of only one of the intensive-
study pesticides and a total of only 10 Ib AI. However, the Texas Highway
Department alone used 4.5 million pounds TCA and 1.9 million pounds Ammate.®
Therefore, quantities of "nonstudy" pesticides that had usages of 0.1 million
pounds or more reported by federal, state and city government agencies are
compiled in Table XXVTII. Note that these figures are "as reported" and
are not extrapolated amounts as were those shown in Table XXVII.
89
-------
TABLE XXVIII
QUANTITIES OF OTHER MAJOR PESTICIDES USED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES!/
Pesticide Million Ib AI Application^/
TCA 5.39 H
Animate® (AMS) 2.34 H
2,4,5-T 0.43 H
Naled (Dibrom®) 0.42 I,M
Flit MLO® 0.31 I
Dalapon 0.22 H
Simazine 0.22 H
Dichloropropene 0.21 Fu,N
Mirex 0.16 I
Zectran® 0.15 I
Copper Sulfate 0.15 F
Vorlex® 0.13 F,Fu,N
Amitrole 0.12 H
Monuron 0.12 H
Dylox® (trichlorfon) 0.11 I
Lamprecide® (TFN) 0.10 Lamprey killer
a/ Includes usage within the continental U.S. reported to FWGPM by federal
agencies (Ref. 42) and usage by state and city agencies reported by
35 states and 22 municipalities in response to an MRI survey.
b/ Application: F, fungicide; Fu, fumigant; H, herbicide; I, insecticide;
M, miticide; N, nematocide.
90
-------
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POTENTIAL OF PESTICIDES
A. Introduction
In this chapter, environmental properties, hazards and effects
common to all pesticides ^3}w/ an(j to certain categories of pesticides are
discussed. These factors are not reiterated for individual pesticides in
the Environmental Impact Potential sections of the Individual Case Studies
in Chapter X of this report because otherwise, much repetitiveness would
have resulted. Thus, the general discussions in this chapter and the environ-
mental impact discussions for each product in Chapter IX complement one another.
Pesticides are potent, biologically active chemicals that are by
nature toxic to one or more forms of life. Almost all pesticides are
toxic not only to the target pest or pests, but also to nontarget organisms.
Most pesticides are released directly into the environment in
the course of their intended use. According to estimates in Chapter III of
this report, about 975 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients (not
including sulfur, creosote, petroleum and p-dichlorobenzene) were applied
for all purposes in the United States in 1972. If this quantity were
blanketed uniformly over the entire U.S. land area (2.3 billion acres),
the rate of deposit would be 0.42 Ib of active ingredient on each acre of
land. Since only a small percentage of the total U.S. land area receives
pesticide treatments, treated areas receive much higher deposits of pesti-
cides each year. (Further details on agricultural applications of pesti-
cides are discussed in Chapter IV of this report.)
B. Mammalian Toxicitv
Many pesticides are toxic to man and higher animals. Toxicity
may result from direct exposure by inhalation through the respiratory
tract; by ingestion through the gastrointestinal tract; and/or through the
skin by contact with the pesticide itself or with its residues. Some
pesticides cause irritation to the skin, the eyes and/or the respiratory
tract, or allergic skin reactions. Toxicity may also result from ingestion
of toxic residues in (or on) food or feed.
The acute and chronic toxicity of many pesticides to mammals,
especially to small laboratory mammals, their metabolism in mammals, and
their persistence in treated crops, meat animals, and animal products have
been studied extensively. Data on these properties of pesticides are
required for pesticide registration and for the establishment of residue
tolerances in raw agricultural commodities, food, or feed. During the
last few years, concern has also developed for possible health hazards
91
-------
to pesticide operators and workers, including pesticide applicators and
their helpers, field workers such as fruit pickers, insect scouts,
flagmen, etc.
Mammalian toxicity of pesticides is discussed in this chapter,
and in the individual case studies, as one of several indicators of the
environmental impact potential of pesticides. While data from toxicity
studies on laboratory mammals are not directly applicable to field con-
ditions, they give an indication of the general order of toxicity of the
pesticide, and of possible hazards to wild mammals.
Data on the acute toxicity to laboratory animals, primarily rats,
are available for all commercial pesticides. However, data on the same
chemical from different sources often vary considerably, especially in the
case of less toxic compounds. This is not surprising because many vari-
ables affect the outcome of such toxicity tests, e.g., the species, strain,
age, sex and general condition of the experimental animals used; whether
or not the animals were fasted prior to administration of the toxicant;
the time of day when the toxicant was given; the form in which the active
ingredient was administered (e.g., formulated, technical or highly puri-
fied; type of formulation; the other formulation ingredients; physical
state; particle size, etc.), the mode of administration, and others. These
factors can cause large variations in results, especially in the case of
chemicals that are poorly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, the
respiratory tract, or the skin. With such pesticides, vast differences
in LDcg's are seen when the chemical is applied in a suitable solvent in
solution, as compared to application in a solid form, especially if the
solid form is a low-concentrate granular or dust formulation.
For these reasons, direct comparisons between LD5Q data obtained
in different tests by different investigators are often misleading. For
purposes of the present study, we feel that comparisons by toxicity cate-
gories are more useful and have, therefore, preferred this approach in
this chapter as well as in the individual product profiles. Table XXIX
presents a summary of the acute toxicity criteria by which pesticides are
assigned to four commonly used categories of toxicity.
Data on the toxicity of pesticides to wild mammals, fishes, and
to lower terrestrial or aquatic organisms are incomplete for many products,
and almost totally lacking for many others, especially older products.
Those data that are available in this field often were obtained under such
diverse experimental or field conditions that direct numerical comparisons
are not meaningful. In discussing widldlife toxicity, we have again pre-
ferred categories, rather than individual or numerical observations, follow-
ing largely the definitions suggested by von Rumker and Horay,—' summarized
in Table XXX.
92
-------
TABLE XXIX
•45 /
MAMMALIAN TOXICITY CATEGORIES OF PESTICIDES'—
Toxicity Parameter/Category Highly Toxic Moderately Toxic Slightly Toxic Relatively Nontoxic
Acute oral Less than 50 Over 50-500 Over 500-5,000 Over 5,000
LD5o, mg/kg
Acute dermal Less than 200 Over 200-2,000 Over 2,000-20,000 Over 20,000
LD50, mg/kg
Acute inhalation Less than 2,000 Over 2,000-20,000
LD50, ug/liter
Dose probably A few drops to 1 teaspoonful to Over 1 oz to Over 1 pt or 1 Ib
lethal to a 1 teaspoonful 1 oz 1 pt or 1 Ib
150 Ib man
Signal word Danger - Poison Warning Caution
required on Skull and
label Crossbones
-------
TABLE XXX
WILDLIFE TOXICITY CATEGORIES OF PESTICIDES
"Highly Toxic"
Severe losses may occur if the pesticide is used in or over a habitat
containing the animals or organisms specified. "Use" of the pesticide
in this context means use at recommended dosage levels, including such
overuse as may be expected in normal operations from overlapping swaths,
inadvertant double treatment, miscalibration, etc.
"Moderately Toxic"
Moderate losses of the animals or organisms specified may occur under
the operating conditions outlined in the preceding paragraph.
"Slightly Toxic"
Slight losses or injury to nontarget organisms may occur.
"Relatively Nontoxic"
No losses or injury to nontarget species are likely to occur, allowing
for a considerable margin of overuse, misapplication, miscalibration, or
other ordinary operation mishaps.
94
-------
C. Toxicity to Other Nontarget Organisms
Pesticides may also affect lower terrestrial or aquatic organisms,
including organisms that are important to vital natural biological waste
degradation and/or oxygen production mechanisms. However, harmful effects
to such organisms will probably not be as obvious or dramatic as, for in-
stance, kills of fish, birds or wild mammals, and may, therefore, go un-
noticed unless and until they result in more apparent consequences.
Persistent pesticides and/or their metabolites and degradation
products may accumulate in the environment, especially in or near treated
areas. Accumulation will occur in local soils or waters when the rate of
pesticide input into the area exceeds the rate of degradation and/or trans-
port out of the area.
Pesticides may accumulate in biological organisms because of the
ability of animals and plants to concentrate many types of pesticides in
their body tissues. If this process is repeated through several links in
a food chain, very high concentrations of pesticide residues can occur in
species at the top of the chain. This phenomenon has been studied and
documented most comprehensively in the case of DDT.
Even the most selective and specific pesticides will affect the
ecosystem in the target area. If only the target pest(s) are decimated,
neighboring organisms in the system will also be affected such as, for
instance, organisms that depend upon the target species for food or shel-
ter. Often, pesticides directly affect not only the target pest(s), but
many nontarget species as well. Effects on nontarget species often
extend beyond target areas, because pesticides and their metabolites and/
or degradation products move away from the site of deposit by drift,
volatilization, leaching, and/or surface transport in water or on sediment.
The degree to which pesticides move throughout the environment by these
processes is related primarily to their chemical stabilities, their
solubility characteristics, and their absorption on soil particles.
In recent years, many expert committees, panels, conferences,
symposia and individual investigators have dealt with the human and en-
vironmental health effects of pesticides and their fate in the environment
after application. Two reviews are of special interest. A very compre-
hensive review was undertaken in 1969 by a commission of distinguished
scientists under the chairmanship of E. Mrak.ft!' This group, supported
by a competent professional staff and several advisory panels, drew on the
advice and cooperation of many additional scientists and other knowledgable
persons. Nevertheless, the commission's final report to the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare contains vastly more information on the
effects of pesticides and pesticide residues on humans and on laboratory
95
-------
animals than on other nontarget organisms; this difference reflects the
relative availability of information in these areas. The second study,
commissioned by the Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office
of the President, thoroughly reviewed the ecological effects of pesticides
on nontarget species and recorded the data that were found.—/
These two comprehensive surveys indicate that relatively little
information is available on the toxicity and hazards of pesticides and
their residues to nontarget organisms under field conditions. Information
is especially sparse concerning the effects, if any, of pesticide residues
on lower aquatic and terrestrial organisms. There is a copious literature
on the effects of individual pesticides on isolated organisms or systems
in the laboratory or greenhouse over short periods of time. However, such
studies are usually far removed from field conditions, and their results
do not answer the question of their significance in regard to field condi-
tions. Even less information is available on the combined effects of
residues of two or more pesticides on nontarget organisms.
Following the discovery of the adverse effects of DDT on animals
at the tops of food chains, the attention of many researchers turned to
the phenomena of bioaccumulation and biomagnification that could produce
these types of effects. Pesticide monitoring studies have centered on
chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides. The possibility that pesticides
may affect terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems in other ways has received
less attention. By virtue of their physical, chemical and biological
properties, fungicides and herbicides are more likely to affect the lower
trophic levels of food chains. It is not known whether or not currently
practiced monitoring and observation methods would detect such effects
prior to the occurrence of massive ecological damage.
D. Pesticide Residues in the Environment
Most studies on pesticide residues, metabolism and degradation
conducted thus far have been focused on crops and/or ILvestock and on
laboratory mammals, in support of registration and tolerance petitions.
By contrast, much less is known about the metabolism and degradation of
pesticides in other elements of the environment, and on the chemical
pathways, rates and other factors involved. This lack of information on
the environmental degradation of pesticides msut be considered in the
interpretation of pesticide monitoring data, soil persistence studies, etc.
In most instances, only the presence or absence of the parent compound is
reported, and the data do not include metabolites or degradation products.
In most persistence studies involving sequential sampling, it remains un-
clear whether the pesticide truly "disappeared" by way of degradation to
harmless breakdown products, whether it was transformed to one or more
96
-------
other biologically active chemicals beyond the scope of the analytical
method(s) employed, and/or whether it moved away from the sampling site un-
changed by atmospheric, surface or subsurface transport mechanisms ..zZ'
1. Soil residues: Comprehensive data on soil residues of pesti-
cides have been presented,z§_/ These authors reported on pesticide residue
levels in soils found in fiscal year 1969 in the National Soils Monitoring
Program for Pesticides. Geographically, the report covers cropland soils
in 43 states, and noncropland soils in 11 states. Five large agricultural
states (Oregon, Montana, Minnesota, Kansas, and Texas) were not included
in the program.
A total of 1,729 samples of cropland soil were collected. All
samples were analyzed for residues of arsenic, 12 chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticides and some of their metabolites, the herbicides DCPA (Dacthal)
and trifluralin (TrefIan), the fungicide PCNB, and the cotton defoliant
Def. Soil samples were analyzed for the herbicides atrazine and 2,4-D, and
for five organophospha.te insecticides (carbophenothion, diazinon, ethion,
malathion, and ethyl parathion) only when use records indicated that these
pesticides had been applied at a given sampling site. In this manner, 199
samples were analyzed for residues of atrazine, 188 for 2,4-D, and 66 for
the organophosphate insecticides.
This survey is thus heavily weighted in favor of chlorinated
hydrocarbon insecticides. It includes several minor pesticides and omits
a number of widely used products.
Arsenic residues were found in 99.3% of the cropland samples, most
or all of them probably resulting from natural sources of arsenic.
The next most frequently found residues were those of dieldrin
and aldrin; they were present in 27.8% and 10.9% of all cropland samples,
respectively. Residues of DDT and/or its metabolites were found in 26.1%,
and chlordane residues in 8.7% of the cropland samples.
The highest DDT residues were found in the states of Alabama,
California, Michigan, Mississippi and South Carolina. In all of these
states except Alabama, the amounts of DDT reportedly applied to the sample
fields were lower than the mean DDT residue levels found. In all five
states, the percent of sampling sites positive for DDT residues was three
to four times greater than the percent of sites reportedly treated with DDT.
The same pattern prevailed in regard to dieldrin residues. In
the seven states in which the highest dieldrin residues were found, i.e.,
Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, and West
97
-------
Virginia, the number of sites reportedly treated with aldrin or dieldrin
was consistently lower than the number of sites at which aldrin/dieldrin
residues were found. In most cases, the average amount of aldrin/dieldrin
applied was very close to the mean residue of dieldrin detected in the
soil.
These findings indicate that there is substanital carry-over of
residues of these persistent pesticides from one season to the next or
beyond, and migration of residues from treated fields to other areas
through environmental transport mechanisms.
2. Residues in the aquatic environment: Pesticides may enter
into aquatic systems through point or nonpoint sources. Potential point
sources include industrial operations such as production and formulation
of pesticides, reclamation of used pesticide containers, use of pesticides
for protection or preservation of wood, fabrics, paint, paper, stored
products, etc. Pesticide-containing effluents from such operations may be
primary point sources, or may be discharged into wastewater collecting
systems whose effluents then become point sources of pesticide pollution,
unless wastewater treatment steps in the system decompose the pesticide
residues. Additional pesticide residues may be contributed to such sys-
tems through the use of pesticides within urban or suburban areas served
by the system, willful dumping of unwanted pesticides., etc. Sometimes,
pesticides are applied directly to bodies of water, for instance, for con-
trol of mosquito larvae, control of aquatic weeds, etc.
Nonpoint source pollution of aquatic systems by pesticide resi-
dues arises from the use of pesticides in agriculture, forestry, in public
health programs, and generally in areas not served by wastewater collect-
ing systems. In most instances, pesticide residues are initially deposited
in or on soil. Soil pesticide residues may become water pollutants by
way of several transport mechanisms.
They may be dissolved or emulsified in water leaching or running
off from land containing residues, or adsorbed on inorganic or organic
solids carried into waterways by erosion.
Pesticide residues may also become airborne, either directly by
volatilization, codistillation or sublimation, or passively by wind erosion.
Through precipitation, such airborne pesticide residues may be deposited
on water surfaces. In view of the distribution of land and water on our
planet, atmospheric cycling of pesticide residues may carry substantial
quantities of these substances to the oceans, while pesticide residues in
inland waters probably come primarily from overland transport. Such move-
ment of pesticide residues from soil into waterways is a complex process,
subject to a multitude of factors including the physical and chemical
98
-------
properties of the pesticide, the formulation, the rate and type of applica-
tion, the target crop, tillage practices, topography of the field, topography
of the area between the field and waterways, distances involved, weather
conditions, especially amount and velocity of rainfall soon after applica-
tion of the pesticide, and many others. No data are available on the re-
lationships between quantities of pesticide input and pesticide residues
in rivers, lakes and oceans.
In considering possible effects of pesticide residues in water
on aquatic ecosystems and water quality, it must be recognized that such
residues do not enter into, or travel in waterways at constant rates, but
in uneven slugs. The largest slugs, often probably consisting of multiple
pesticide residues, are likely to occur in the spring when the heaviest
use of pesticides in agriculture coincides with intensive precipitation.
Pesticide concentrations will vary greatly at different times and places
along waterways and may fluctuate from harmless to injurious levels at
any given point. If and where concentrations harmful to one or more
aquatic organisms occur, their aftereffects are likely to be more prolonged
than the residence time of the harmful amount of toxicant(s) itself.
Pesticide residues in major river systems are eventually die-
charged into estuaries, areas that marine biologists consider to be among
the world's most ecologically sensitive areas.
Several federal and state water monitoring programs include
pesticides. Analytical data from these sources are stored in Storet, a
data storage and retrieval system maintained by the Environmental Protection
Agency that is intended to be the depository for data of this type from all
federal programs. Nonfederal inputs to Storet, such as data from state
programs or private sources, are voluntary and are often not made because
of lack of resources. In a recent EPA-funded study on "Pesticide Use on
the Nonirrigated Croplands of the Midwest"rL' an analysis was made of all
available STORET data on pesticides for selected stations along the main-
streams of the Mississippi, Missouri and Kansas rivers. The great majority
of the samples were negative for the pesticides analyzed which included
aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, BHC, chlordane, DDT and two of its metabolites,
heptachlor and its epoxide, malathion, ethyl and methyl parathion, diazinon,
2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and silvex. However, many samples were taken at times when
residues of these pesticides would be unlikely to be present. Almost no
values were reported for pesticide residues on suspended solids or sedi-
ment.
In view of the highly seasonal uses of most pesticides, data on
pesticide residues obtained from analysis of samples taken for other pur-
poses, on sampling schedules and at sampling stations not geared to pesti-
cide use patterns, are not likely to answer questions concerning what effects,
99
-------
if any, waterborne pesticide residues have on aquatic ecosystems and water
quality.
The current state of knowledge of the fate of organic pesticides
in the aquatic environment was reviewed at a symposium sponsored by the
American Chemical Society in 1971.^2' In a keynote presentation at the
conference, Johnson and Ball^' summarized the situation as follows: "Our
lack of knowledge regarding the fate of chemicals in major aquatic ecosystems
has resulted in confusion and poorly defined issues regarding the hazards
of chemical contaminants to human health and loss of environmental quality."
3. Residues in air: While data on soil and water residues of
pesticides are far from abundant, even less is known about their presence
and movements in air. Pimentel-tx' summarized the few data available. Almost
all of these pertain to chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides, predominantly
DDT and its derivatives.
These data indicate that pesticide residues in air are quite
ubiquitous. It appears that pesticides in the air as a result of drift
may remain airborne for prolonged periods of time. Volatilization, sub-
limation, codistillation and wind erosion apparently propel additional
quantities of pesticides into the atmosphere. Airborne pesticide residues
from these sources appear to travel great distances, and this transport
mechanism is probably responsible for the reported presence of pesticide
residues in arctic and antarctic wildlife, and in many other places far
removed from areas of use.
E. Environmental Impact Potential of Pesticides by Categories
1. Insecticides: Insecticides affect insects by contact,
stomach and/or inhalation action. Contact poisoning may result if a dry
or liquid insecticide particle impinges directly on an insect, or if an
insect contacts a residual deposit of the insecticide. So-called
"systemic" insecticides penetrate into treated plants through roots and/or
foliage and are translocated inside the plant, killing sucking insects
that suck toxic plant juices, and/or chewing insects feeding on toxic
plant tissues.
Insecticides may be applied to the soil, to plant foliage, as a
space treatment against flying insects, as a residual treatment to inert
surfaces, stored products, etc., or to water. Most soil treatments are
preventive in nature, i.e., the insecticide is applied, before infestation
levels of the target pest(s) can be determined. Foliar insecticides are
sometimes applied on preventive, preprogrammed, so-called "wash day"
100
-------
schedules. However, in most instances, "curative" use of foliar insecti-
cides (only if and when needed) is possible. Preventive use of insecticides
is especially attractive from an economic standpoint if target pest(s) are
believed to occur regularly, and if an inexpensive insecticide is available.
In such instances, the insecticide use is essentially an insurance measure
that protects the grower against a potential loss. In addition, it relieves
him of the need to worry whether or not a treatment may actually be required,
whether the weather will be favorable, whether labor and equipment will be
available when a treatment may be needed, etc. Preventive use of soil
insecticides is encouraged by the fact that for most soil insects, no simple
and reliable diagnostic methods are available.
Most pesticides classified as "highly toxic" to mammals are in-
secticides. For this and other reasons, the toxicity and hazards of in-
secticides and their residues to human health and to nontarget organisms
such as wild mammals, birds and fishes have been studied more extensively
than those of herbicides, fungicides, and other pesticides.
Cumulatively to date, insecticides have been used in larger
quantities worldwide than herbicides, fungicides or other pesticides.
However, in the U.S., herbicide surpassed insecticides in volume of annual
use several years ago. (The world use of herbicides continues to grow at
a more rapid rate than that of insecticides.)
Insecticides affect the quality of ecosystems primarily by
their effects on other animal species. Even if a given insecticide would
destroy only the target insect pest, other animals depending upon that
species for food would be indirectly effected. In most instances, an
insecticide application affects not only the target pest(s), but also
nontarget species. The latter may include species beneficial to man such
as honeybees, or parasites or predators that would limit population levels
of harmful insects if left undisturbed. Elimination of such predators or
parasites may bring about increasingly rapid resurgence of the target
pests following treatments.
In other instances, pests of minor economic significance may
build up to damaging proportions if other insects against which they were
in competition are removed from the system.
Furthermore, many insects have developed resistance to insecti-
cides, often to the point where insecticides that were at first highly
effective have become completely useless. In situations where develop-
ment of resistance in the target insects and destruction of their natural
enemies coincide, chemical insecticides ultimately fail completely from
an economic as well as from a biological standpoint. In this unhappy
chain of events, the net benefits from the use of chemical insecticides
101
-------
diminish steadily, while both the monetary and ecological cost of control
increase to the point where they become unacceptable.
Insecticides and their residues may also affect nontarget organ-
isms other than mammals, birds, fishes and arthropods, but much less in-
formation is available on hazards to such other organisms.
a. Chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides: In spite of
numerous studies in many countries, the mechanism of action of chlorinated
hydrocarbon insecticides (including DDT) is not understood to this date.
No specific antidotes are available for treatment of cases of human poison-
ing by chlroinated hydrocarbon insecticides.
This group includes several pesticides whose residues are
very persistent, including DDT and aldrin/dieldrin. Monitoring data in-
dicate that in areas of heavy use of these persistent pesticides, applica-
tion rates have exceeded rates of degradation, resulting in accumulation
of residues in the environment. Through atmospheric and surface trans*-
port mechanism, residues of these persistent insecticides have been widely
distributed over our entire planet.
b. Organic phosphate and carbamate insecticides: These
insecticides have several important characteristics in common. Their
biochemical action is based on the inhibition of cholinesterase, a vital
body enzyme present in many species throughout the animal kingdom. A
large percentage of the pesticides in the "highly toxic" category of
mammalian toxicity are organic phosphate or carbamate insecticides, in-
cluding such highly poisonous chemicals as aldicarb, TEPP, parathion, and
others. Fortunately, effective antidotes are available for the treatment
of organic phosphate and carbamate poisoning. These antidotes reactivate
the inhibited cholinesterase enzyme (pralidoxime chloride), or counteract
the effects of enzyme inhibition (atropine sulfate) within the organism.
They are thus highly specific, and often dramatically effective in cases
of human poisoning. However, since their action is curative in nature,
they do not offer promise for the prevention of poisoning in humans or
other nontarget species.
2. Herbicides: Herbicides are used in the following ways:
- Preplanting, that is before seeding or planting of the target
crop.
- Preemergence, that is at the time of seeding of the crop, or
up to the time just prior to crop emergence. At this stage, contact
herbicides will destroy emerged susceptible weeds before emergence of the
102
-------
crop seedlings; residual herbicides will destroy susceptible weed seeds
and germinating seedlings.
- Postemergence, that is after emergence of the target crop.
Preplant and preemergence herbicide uses are inherently preven-
tive in nature. However, previous history of a given field usually in-
dicates to the grower the extent of weed problems he is likely to experi-
ence.
The majority of present-day herbicides in the U.S. are applied
to the soil preplant or preemergence, by ground equipment. This mode of
application considerably reduces or eliminates the problems of drift
and pesticide deposits outside of the target area. These problems are
common if pesticides are applied several or many feet above ground, as in
the case of application by air or high-clearance ground equipment.
Herbicides affect ecosystems in the target area by the elimination
of susceptible plant species. Thus they change the habitat of other plants
and, more importantly, the habitat of animals in the area. Herbicides may
also affect lower terrestrial or aquatic organisms, although systematic
field observations in this regard are almost nonexistent. To the extent
that biologically active herbicide residues are transported beyond target
areas, these effects would be spread.
Development of resistance to herbicides in target weeds has been
reported in some instances, but to this date, resistance has not become
a major problem. However, continued use of herbicides in certain areas
has resulted in the gradual elimination of easy-to-kill vegetation, and
the spread of species that are more difficult to kill, especially deep-
rooted perennial plants.
Use of herbicides for the control of aquatic weeds entails the
same problems in principle, but effects on nontarget organisms may appear
more quickly, be more profound, and extend more readily to areas further
removed from the site of application of the herbicide because the water
medium represents a more active transport system than the soil/plant/air
system. Only a very small percentage, probably less than 1%, of all her-
bicides used in the United States are applied to aquatic systems directly
for the control of aquatic weeds.
Most herbicides are only slightly toxic or relatively nontoxic
to mammals. Most studies on the metabolism and degradation of herbicides
focus on one or more of the following areas: (a) herbicide residues in
treated crops (with a view to the establishment of residue tolerances, or
exemptions from the need for same), (b) the possible effects of herbicide
103
-------
residues in the soil on crops following in the rotation, or (c) the
effects of these residues on other desirable vegetation. By contrast,
very little information is available on the degradation of herbicide
residues in other elements of the environment, or on the effects of
herbicides on other nontarget organisms.
Chemically, herbicides represent a considerable variety of
chemical families. They vary widely in their mechanism of action. For
many herbicides, considerable information is available on how they affect
plants, but much less is known on the mode of toxic action on mammals.
However, in view of their generally low mammalian toxicity, the latter
has not been considered a pressing problem.
3. Fungicides: From the biological standpoint, control of plant
pathogens by chemical fungicides is a difficult problem because both the
pathogen to be destroyed and the crop to be protected belong to the plant
kingdom. Besides, they usually live in such close physical and biochemical
association that the crop is often rightfully referred to as the host. By
contrast, insecticides are employed in crop protection to control animals
on plants. In the case of weed control, the "pest" is usually at least
physically separated from the crop, rather than living on or in it, al-
though both are plants.
Thus, in the development of fungicides, achievement of an adequate
safety margin between toxicity to the host and toxicity to the pathogen is a
difficult task. In crop protection, most fungicides are applied to the
foliage of plants to be protected from fungal pathogens. Much smaller
quantities of fungicides are used for the treatment of seeds, to protect
them and the germinating seedlings from soil- or seed-borne pathogenic
fungi.
Most fungicides are not capable of destroying plant-pathogenic
fungi after they have become established on the host plant. Therefore,
they have to be applied protectively, i.e., before attack of the fungus.
Only a few fungicides act curatively, i.e., are capable of destroying
fungi that have already invaded the host plant, but have not yet generated
spores that will initiate a new generation of the fungus. Even fewer
fungicides are true eradicants, i.e., capable of eradicating an infection
of the pest fungus after sporulation has already taken place.
Most fungicides (with the exception of heavy metal derivatives)
are only slightly toxic or relatively nontoxic to mammals. Most of the
fungicides currently in widespread commercial use were developed many
years ago, prior to the time when data on environmental behavior and
toxicity became registration requirements. As a result, relatively little
information is available today on the possible toxicity of fungicides to
104
-------
nontarget organisms, and on their metabolism, degradation and fate in the
environment. Only one fungicide, PCNB, was included in the National Soils
Monitoring Program.^L§/
By virtue of their biological and chemical properties, fungicides
are most likely to affect lower terrestrial and aquatic nontarget organ-
isms .
In most fungicide applications, thorough coverage of the plant
to be protected is essential. Consequently, fungicides are usually applied
by ground equipment which reduces the drift hazard. Many fungicides are
rather instable on plant foliage, and their residual effectiveness declines
rapidly. In many instances, multiple applications at short intervals are
required when conditions for establishment of infections by the pathogen
are present.
Inorganic and organometallic fungicides are generally more per-
sistent than nonmetallic organic chemicals. Organic mercurial fungicides
resemble persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides in some of their
persistence characteristics. However, use of mercurial chemicals as
fungicides represents only a small fraction of the total use of mercury
in the U.S. Nevertheless, most registrations of mercurial fungicides were
cancelled some time ago, and their use for this purpose has almost ceased
at this time.
As discussed in greater detail in the chapter on alternatives
(Chapter IX), very few nonchemical methods are available for the control
of fungus diseases on plants.
Fungicides are produced and used in the U.S. in much smaller
quantities than insecticides and herbicides.
Based on past history, the greatest hazard from the use of
fungicides appears to be misuse of seed treated with fungicides toxic to
mammals. In the U.S. as well as in other countries, misuse of treated
seed for direct human consumption or as animal feed has resulted in
poisoning epidemics, some resulting in fatalities.
105
-------
VIII. WASTEFUL PESTICIDE USE PRACTICES
A. Introduction
There are several major potential sources of waste associated with
the use of pesticides, including pesticide losses during application, misuse,
overuse, and unnecessary use. Very few efforts have been made to quantify
such wasteful use practices. Even the matter of definition presents a problem.
For instance, a grower using a pre-emergence, soil-applied herbicide or in-
secticide on a preventive basis, i.e., before the target pests actually appear,
considers this pesticide use a protection against possible yield losses and
thus a necessary investment, especially in cases where curative pest control
methods are not available, not as effective, not as convenient to apply,
and/or more expensive than the preventive treatment. From a biological and
ecological standpoint, the preventive treatment might be considered wasteful
if and to the extent that pest infestations fail to materialize.
As mentioned above, very few, if any, studies have been conducted
thus far in which wasteful pesticide use practices have been systematically
investigated, quantified and documented. No universally accepted definitions
have been established delineating wasteful from nonwasteful pesticide uses.
The great divergence of opinions on this point is illustrated, for instance,
in the present legal proceedings in connection with the cancellation of the
registration of the insecticide aldrin. Expert witnesses have presented
widely divergent views in court on whether the use of aLdrin as a soil insec-
ticide is essential or wasteful.
In the absence of established criteria and well documented studies
on wasteful pesticide use practices by products and crops or other uses, it
has not been possible to identify specific "wasteful" uses in the case studies
in this project. However, several actual and potential sources of waste
are common to the use of all pesticides. These are discussed in the follow-
ing sections of this chapter.
B. Application Losses
Chemical pesticides have been widely accepted and are today the
principal tool for the control of pests in agriculture, industry and public
health. One important reason for their large-scale use is their favorable
cost/effectiveness ratio. Many pesticides provide a high degree of pest
control per dollar spent and, in many instances, are the most economical,
efficient and convenient means of pest control. This is especially true
if possible consequences of unwise use of pesticides over extended periods
of time are disregarded.
106
-------
However, most pesticide uses are highly inefficient from an ecologi-
cal standpoint, considering the quantity/effectiveness ratio. Figure 6
presents a schematic description of the fate of a given quantity of insecticide
sprayed topically on a crop. The percentage loss figures (in terms of the
quantity applied = 100%) do not represent one specific case, but are composited
from several different field studies. Typical losses due to drift were taken
from the studies by Adair et al.,H/ Akesson and Yates ,li / an
-------
Quantity Applied
1007.
30%
In Target Area
70%
10%
I
15%
On Target Crop
45%
I
Near Target Insect
4%
Drift and
Misapplication
Volatilization
Leaching, and
Surface Transport
Off Target Crop
Off Target Insect
> 3%
No Contact
Absorbed by Insect
through Contact,
Inhalation, and Ingestion
< 1%
Off Target
Area
Ground, other Nontarget
Surfaces in Target Area
Residue on
Treated Crop
Not at Site of Action
Site of Toxic Action
Inside Insect
« 17o
Percentage distribution figures do not represent one specific case, but
are composited from several different field studies and assumptions on
the degree of ground cover, and the density of target insects on the
target crop (see text).
Figure 6 - Foliar Insecticide Application: Typical Losses
Between Spray Nozzle and Site of Toxic Action
108
-------
C. Overuse
When chemical pesticides first came into widespread use after World
War II, they initially provided spectacular and unprecedented control of
insects, weeds, and other pests. Pesticide developers, marketers and users
soon became used to nearly 100% control of pests, and this became the standard
for the development and registration of pesticides, and for application rates
recommended by producers, federal and state extension services, and others.
However, fairly soon, undesirable results became increasingly
apparent, including the development of pest populations resistant to pesti-
cides; rapid resurgence of target pest populations following treatment; out-
breaks of secondary pests which did not cause economic damage previously;
undesirable residue levels on food crops and in many other elements of the
environment, including man himself; and adverse effects on wildlife.
It was also realized that in many instances, close to 100% control
of target pests is not necessary for prevention of yield losses and that, in
fact, lower rates of application may be more advantageous because they allow
greater survival of beneficial predators and parasites which assist in the
suppression of pest insects and thus often help to reduce the need for more
pesticide applications.
An interesting example of these interrelationships has been
presented by Gate et al.—' in a study on the management of the greenbug,
Schizaphis graminum. on grain sorghum. The standard application rate of
parathion emulsifiable concentrate for the control of this insect is 0.5
Ib Al/acre. This rate provided 98% seasonal control of the greenbug, and a
sorghum seed yield of 4,400 Ib/acre. At the rate of 0.1 Ib Al/acre, para-
thion provided 94%, seasonal greenbug control, and a sorghum seed yield of
4,450 Ib/acre.
In the same test, the standard recommended rate of disulfoton
granular, 1.0 Ib Al/acre, provided 99% seasonal control of greenbugs, and
a sorghum seed yield of 4,333 Ib/acre. At 0.1 Ib Al/acre, disulfoton
granular provided 80% seasonal control of greenbugs, and 4,033 Ib/acre of
sorghum seed.
For both products, the degree of seasonal greenbug control and
the sorghum seed^yields achieved at the different rates of application
were not statistically different at the 5% level.
These data indicate that economic control of greenbugs on sorghum
can be obtained at application rates substantially lower than the standard
recommended rates which appear on tbe registered labels of these insecticides.
Similar results have been reported at recent meetings by entomologists work-
ing on other crop/pest combinations, especially on field and forage crops
109
-------
where insects affect primarily the quantity rather than the quality of crop
yield. By contrast, certain fruit and vegetable crops, especially those
intended for the fresh market, have a much narrower insect damage tolerance
margin.
Thus, there are indications that at least on some major crops,
currently registered "standard" rates of insecticides may be unnecessarily
high. However, a question has recently arisen whether or not in the future,
pesticides can be recommended and used at such reduced rates of applica-
tion if these rates are lower than those specified on the registered product
label. Section 12, "Unlawful Acts," (A) (2) (G) of the 1972 amendments to
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, Public Law 92-516,
states, "It shall be unlawful for any person to use any registered pesticide
in a manner inconsistent with its labeling." It is possible that this
clause of the new pesticide law will result in the recommendation and use
of pesticides at rates of application higher than economically necessary
or ecologically desirable.
D. Unnecessary Use
The question whether or not a given pesticide application is un-
necessary and thus wasteful is often difficult to decide. First of all, a
certain pesticide use might be biologically or ecologically wasteful, but
might still be economically profitable, at least in the opinion of the pesti-
cide user. Oftentimes, there is no way for the user to determine with
certainty whether or not the use was actually profitable, but the opinion
that it was profitable in the past, and the expectation that it will continue
to be profitable in the future provide sufficient incentive to continue the
practice.
All preventive and preprogrammed pesticide applications are poten-
tially wasteful. Included in this category are, for instance, pre-emergence
applications of insecticides, herbicidesJ or fungicides; and all other
pesticide uses in which the product is applied prior to the actual presence
of the pest in damaging numbers. However, some pesticides are effective
only when applied preventively; they are unable to eliminate or eradicate
pest or disease infestations once established. Many fungicides fall in this
category, including captan (Case Study No. 19) and maneb (Case Study No. 21).
Many herbicides, including alachlor (Case Study No. 11) and tri-
fluralin (Case Study No. 18), work against weeds only in the germination or
early seedling stage, before they emerge. Many other herbicides, while
effective against emerged weeds in varying degrees, usually work better if
applied prior to weed emergence and therefore are primarily used on a pre-
ventive, rather than a curative basis.
110
-------
The preventive use of fungicides and herbicides is usually justi-
fied on the basis of prior experience which indicates to the grower if, when
and where weed or disease infestations are likely to occur. Good methods
for the prediction of plant disease occurrence have been developed for many
crop disease systems. In the case of weeds, acperienced growers who know
their fields are usually able to anticipate weed problems, although the degree
of weed pressure may be greatly influenced by the weather, which is largely
unpredictable.
The situation is more difficult in regard to the use of insecticides,
especially soil insecticides that have to be applied preventively. For in-
stance, if a grower uses aldrin as a preventive treatment against corn soil
insects at a cost of $2 to $4/acre, he does not consider this wasteful, even
though he may know that only a small percentage or none of the area treated
might be invaded by soil insects. If the actual infestation level turns out
to be 10%, then 90% of the aldrin quantity applied might be considered a
"wasteful use." However, the problem is that no one at the present state of
the art is able to predict which portion of a given field might or might not
be damaged by soil insects, and many corn growers consider the postemergence
"curative" treatments recommended against corn soil insects to be inconvenient
and unreliable.
A somewhat similar situation exists on crops such as cotton in
areas where the crop is known to be subject to insect infestations regularly,
year after year. In these areas, many growers have adopted preprogrammed,
or so-called "wash-day" type insecticide application schedules, starting
treatments when insects first appear, and continuing applications routinely
throughout the season. Insecticides that are relatively inexpensive such
as, for instance, toxaphene, are widely used in this manner.
Again, as in the foregoing example concerning the use of aldrin
on corn, cotton growers consider this type of pesticide use a necessary
protection of their crop, while from a biological and ecological viewpoint,
the use may be at least partially wasteful, or even counterproductive (if
it eliminates beneficial insects and thus results in a more severe pest in-
sect problem). Integrated pest management programs are currently being
developed and employed to overcome these problems (see pp. 119-121 of this report)
E. Other Wasteful Uses
Pesticides may be used wastefully, or released into the environ-
ment without redeeming benefits in a variety of additional ways, such as
through breakage of, or spillage from containers; improper cleaning of ap-
plication equipment; dumping of unwanted concentrated or dilute products;
incomplete emptying of containers, measuring cups, spray tanks, hoppers,
111
-------
etc.; miscalibration; unnecessary overlapping of application swaths; etc.
All of these potential sources of waste are common to all pesticides.
In addition, unwanted releases of pesticides into air, water and/
or soil may occur in the course of production, formulation, packaging,
transportation, warehousing and distribution of these products. These poten-
tial pesticide escape routes are outside of the scope of the present study,
but have recently been investigated in several other projects (including
citations to 1971 MRI/RvR case study, and other recent MRI projects).
112
-------
IX. ALTERNATIVES TO CHEMICAL PESTICIDES
A. Introduction
Very few, if any plants cultivated by man for the production of
food or fiber or for other purposes are free from attack by pests that
threaten to decrease yields, quality and/or aesthetic value of the plantings.
Cultural, mechanical and other methods for combating such pests have been
employed by growers around the world for centuries. Furthermore, naturally
occurring predators, parasites and pathogens of pest organisms have been
operating in undisturbed ecosystems to limit population levels of pests.
Some of the age-old techniques continue to be employed at this
time. A number of additional alternatives to the use of chemical pesticides,
or to sole reliance on them, have been developed more recently. Also,
there is increasing interest in combining different pest control techniques
in integrated pest management systems. General aspects of the major individ-
ual nonchemical crop protection and pest control methods, and of integrated
pest management are discussed in this chapter.
B. Cultural Methods
Cultural methods, also referred to as "environmental manipulation",
to reduce or eliminate pest damage to crops include (a) selection of plant-
ing and harvesting dates for crops so as to favor crop plants and to dis-
rupt pests' life cycles; (b) selection of appropriate fertilizers and fer-
tilizer application dates; (c) timing of plowing, tilling and cultivating
so as to favor the crop and destroy the pest(s); (d) crop rotation; (e) fal
lowing; and others.
Plowing, tilling and/or cultivating involve soil movement and
often result in increased soil erosion. While these measures may reduce
the need for pesticides, they may, on the other hand, increase the migra-
tion of pesticide residues from the area if the top layer of soil (which
is most affected by sheet erosion) contains pesticide residues from previous
applications.
Cultural methods are most widely used for the control of weeds.
They are generally less effective against insects. Except for crop rotation,
they offer little help against most nematodes and plant diseases.
113
-------
C. Physical and Mechanical Methods
Mechanical procedures to combat pests include (a) removal of
weed seeds from crop seeds by hand or by mechanical equipment; (b) collection
of insect egg masses, larvae or adults by hand; (c) removal of weeds from
crops by pulling or hoeing by hand, or by harrowing or other mechanical
means; and (d) control of weeds, insects or diseases by flooding or, in the
case of limited quantities of soil, by steam sterilization. Pests affecting
man or animals may be controlled by screens, sticky bands, fly swatters,
rodent traps, etc.
Such methods of pest control generally are effective only if pest
infestations are light, if only small areas are involved, and/or if human
labor is readily available and economically feasible.
D. Resistant Crop Varieties
The breeding of crops resistant to pests is, in theory, one of
the most promising techniques for the control of insects, diseases, and
nematodes, but the technique offers less hope in regard to weeds. Crop
varieties resistant to certain nematodes, insects, or diseases have been
produced and continue to be produced by plant breeders in many countries.
"Resistance" of the crop may consist of immunity or resistance against
attacks by the pest, or of tolerance of the crop to the presence of the
pest.
On the other hand, modern plant breeding has brought additional
problems in regard to crop protection. Plant breeders usually strive first
for high 3Tield capacity and high quality in the crops on which they work.
Often, higher yielding varieties are more susceptible to pests. The use
of other agricultural production inputs, such as fertilizers and irrigation,
results in denser, lusher growth that makes stands of such crops even more
susceptible to many pests. Breeding pest resistance into new and higher
yielding crop varieties may be undertaken as a secondary goal, but this
reincorporation of resistance factors from the lower yielding strains which
carry resistance genes is a difficult and time-consuming process. Often,
the breeding of pest resistance is not attempted because the use of chemical
pesticides is taken for granted and is included among the conditions under
which prospective new strains and varieties are selected and tested.
On balance, modern breeders of agricultural crop varieties
have without question made invaluable contributions to the improvement of
quantity and quality of agricultural and horticultural production, but in
regard to exposure of crops to pest damage, they have probably created
114
-------
about as many problems as they have solved. This conclusion is substantiated
by the results of a recent study on the genetic vulnerability of major U.S.
crops conducted by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences chaired
by Horsfall.li/
E. Predators and Parasites
Many insect pests have natural enemies that control their popula-
tion levels and these natural enemies are an important factor in maintain-
ing a dynamic balance among populations of plants and animals in an eco-
system. These naturally occurring control factors represent one of the
greatest resources for pest suppression. The deliberate use of insect pred-
ators and parasites has received much attention in recent years (DeBach,69./
,^/ RpiPT-,62.63/
Successful suppression or control by parasites and predators has
been reported for over 100 arthropod pests, and for several species of weeds.
There are three major ways of using this technique, i.e., (1) importation
and colonization of parasites and predators against alien pests, (2) mass
culture and periodic colonization (this technique is especially promising
in closed systems such as greenhouses), and (3) conservation and augmenta-
tion of naturally present parasites and predators.
To apply any or all of these techniques successfully requires a
thorough understanding of the life cycles of the organisms involved,
including predators, parasites, host pest(s) and host plants. In this
connection, the study of life tables for insects (Varley§j>/) and of in-
sect population dynamics (Varley and GradwelL22') has received much atten-
tion.
"Beneficial" insects have also been employed successfully against
some weed species. However, this technique is currently most promising for
the control of arthropod pests. It does not appear to offer promise against
plant diseases.
F. Insect Pathogens
Two types of microorganisms pathogenic to insects have been de-
veloped and are in limited commercial use on several crops today, i.e.,
preparations of Bacillus species, and nuclear polyhedrosis viruses.
Several commercial products based upon Bacillus thuringiensis
are currently available on the U.S. market. These products are exempted
from the requirement of a tolerance and are registered for the control of
115
-------
lepidopterous insects on a considerable number of crops. The main deterrent
to their use is that these bacterial products cannot effectively compete
against chemical insecticides registered for the same control purposes.
Growers are familiar with the chemical insecticides and their more rapid
mode of action, and chemical insecticides are often less expensive per unit
of control.
Preparations based on Bacillus popilliae and several other Bacillus
species are under commercial development, but have not yet reached the
volume of use of Bacillus thuringiensis preparations.
Several nuclear polyhedrosis virus preparations are available in
the U.S. for control of cotton bollworms, Heliothis spp. These products
are not widely used at this time. Problems concerning their large scale pro-
duction, formulation, storage stability, application timing and methods,
stability after application, and safety precautions remain to be resolved.
Development work is in progress on a number of other insect viruses, includ-
ing those of the cabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni; the alfalfa looper, Autog-
rapha californica; the Douglas fir tussock moth, Hemerocampa pseudotsugata;
and several others.
Bacillus preparations are of interest to growers, especially for
the control of lepidopterous insects on lettuce and cole crops close to har-
vest when there may be restrictions on the use of chemical insecticides.
So far as application timing and technique is concerned, Bacillus prepara-
tions can be used as direct substitutes for chemical insecticides for the
uses for which they are registered, or even combined with chemicals in the
spray tank.
On the other hand, the virus preparations known to date do not
work well if they are used in the same manner as chemical insecticides.
They normally work best as components of complete integrated pest management
systems.
Microbial pathogens useful for the nonchemical control of weeds
or plant diseases have not been commercially developed to this date.
G. Sterilization
Males and females of a number of insect species can be sterilized
by chemicals or by irradiation. Application of this method for insect con-
trol in the field involves (1) mass rearing of the pest insect, (2) sterili-
zation, and (3) mass release of sterilized insects in the area of infesta-
tion. If a significant percentage of the target insect population is sterile
the rate of reproduction will be reduced, and a decline in population will
116
-------
result. The sterilization process has to be controlled in such a manner
that the sterilized individuals remain sexually competitive with untreated
individuals in the wild population, while completion of the reproductive
cycle is disrupted.
This method has been used successfully for the eradication of the
screw-worm, Cochliomyia hominivorax (an important livestock pest), from
several isolated tropical islands. It was subsequently used on a larger
scale to suppress the screw-worm in the southeastern states and in the
western gulf states. The existence of a small Florida wintering area for
the screw-worm made this method of control very successful in the south-
east, but a much more difficult task lies ahead in the Texas area. The
sterilization technique is currently in pilot scale or full field use
against several other insects, including the Mexican fruit fly, Anastrepha
ludens; the pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella; and the cotton boll
weevil, Anthonomus grandis.
In each of the above cases, the logistics problems are formidable.
By its very nature, the sterilization technique has to be used on an area
wide basis. Thus far, this has limited its practical application to large-
scale programs funded and executed by federal government agencies. Exten-
sion of the technique to other pest problems is not likely to occur rapidly.
However, research activity in the field continues, and it is possible that
the sterilization method may contribute to solving future insect problem.
Some work is in progress toward applying sterilization methods
for the control of pest bird populations.
H. Insect Growth Regulators
Hormones regulate essential physiological processes such as growth,
molting and reproduction of insects. The potential of such substances for
control of insects has been recognized and developed by entomologists and
biochemists in the United States and in Europe for a number of years (Bowers,—'
Menn and Beroza,.§§' Robbins^z.') . Several commercial companies in this country
and elsewhere are actively engaged in the development and tryout of synthetic
insect growth regulators for insect control. Promising results have been re-
ported, and one chemical is currently in pilot scale commercial tests under
an experimental permit from the Environmental Protection Agency for the con-
trol of mosquito larvae. It is reported that in this use, the product com-
petes economically with fuel oils, and that it is completely effective against
mosquito larvae resistant against conventional insecticides. Promising re-
sults have also been reported against fly species breeding in manure when the
chemical was orally fed to cattle in small quantities.
117
-------
Insect growth regulators have also been tested extensively for
control of plant-feeding lepidopterous insects. However, results in this
field so far have been less promising because, in this case, the larval
stage of the insect is the economically damaging stage, and the insect's
life cycle is disrupted only after it has already done the damage.
I. Pheromones, Attractants, and Repellents
Pheromones are chemicals used for communication between two or
more animals of the same species. Among animals, pheromones are more
important modes of communication than vision or sound (Shorey—').
As possible tools of insect management or control, pheromones can
be employed in different ways, i.e., to trap insects for diagnostic or for
control purposes, or to disrupt their normal behavior, especially their
mating behavior. Much work has been done to develop this potential for
insect population management (Beroza,Zl' Shorey—'). Several pheromone
preparations are currently in semicommercial or commercial use, including
boll weevil pheromones in integrated cotton pest management, and fruit
insect pheromones in traps for monitoring purposes in fruit orchards. An
application is currently pending for an experimental permit for the use of
traps baited with codling moth attractant for population reduction of this
insect in the field.
Insects may also be influenced by attractants that are not
pheromones, for instance, feeding attractants such as sugar, molasses or
other sweet materials used in poisoned fly baits or sticky fly bands;
protein hydrolysates used to attract fruit flies; etc.. Such materials have
been employed in place of chemical insecticides in some instances, or as
a means to reduce the quantity of chemical insecticide required for control
in others. In some cases, molasses appears to provide some protection
against inactivation by UV light to chemicals or microorganisms if it is
added to the spray mixture, an additional bonus from its use.
Other substances are known to have the opposite effect, i.e.,
to repel insects. Such chemicals are used in insect repellent products
for human use or for the protection of livestock and domestic animals.
Other chemicals are used to repel pest birds, dogs, and other animals.
Pheromones and attractants offer considerable promise as alterna-
tives to chemical insecticides in some instances, but probably even greater
promise as components of integrated pest management systems, in conjunction
with chemical insecticides and/or other control techniques.
Attractants or repellents have not shown promise thus far for
the control of soil insects, nematodes, weeds or plant diseases.
118
-------
J. Antimetabolites and Antifeeding Agents
Antimetabolites and antifeeding agents are chemical substances
that interfere with the nutritional or developmental processes of living
organisms.
Antimetabolites inhibit the utilization of nutrients, usually by
antagonistic action. They are chemically similar to essential nutrients and,
when introduced into a biological system, prevent the nutrients from per-
forming their normal functions. This appears to be an interesting approach
from the theoretical standpoint, but no pest antimetabolites are in com-
mercial use at this time.
Antifeeding agents, also called feeding deterrents, are designed
to prevent pests from feeding on their normal host plants, thus eliminating
the damage rather than the pest. Conceptually, this approach has considerable
appeal. Antifeeding agents would be highly specific and would affect only
insects attacking the crop being protected. Such use would not harm para-
sites, predators, or other beneficial insects, nor reduce the target insect
population away from the treated target crop, thus allowing natural parasites
and predators to continue to thrive on the species. However, no antifeeding
agents are in, or nearing commercial use in the U.S. to this date. Thus,
they are not available at this time as potential substitutes for chemical
insecticides.
No substances of a comparable mode of action have been suggested
for the control of weeds, plant diseases, or other pests.
K. Integrated Pest Management
Research workers and practitioners in the field of crop protection
and pest control increasingly agree that the nonchemical methods of pest
control are not likely to be effective substitutes for chemical pesticides
by themselves; they will work best in conjunction with one or more other
(chemical or nonchemical) pest control tools in integrated pest management
systems. C. W. Huffaker, one of the pioneers of this concept, describes it
as "The system of pest management that will bring the most benefits, at
the most reasonable cost, on a long-term basis, to the farmer and to society".
In this approach, the best of all available control techniques are to be
brought to bear against pest problems, instead of sole reliance on chemical
pesticides, or on any other single technique alone.
Much research and field work on integrated pest management has
been done in recent years, with primary emphasis on biological aspects
119
-------
such as life cycles and life tables of the insects involved (both benefi-
cial and injurious), and the biological effects of individual system com-
ponents on the whole. Comparatively much less information is available on
operational, economic, and financial requirements of integrated pest
management systems. Many problems remain to be resolved; some examples
are (1) determining the minimum effective scope of a practical program,
(2) determining how to obtain and organize farmer cooperation, and (3)
determining how to translate theories, principles, and research data into
practical, economically viable programs at the grower Level. Other thorny
questions currently unanswered pertain to the future roles of the Federal/
State Cooperative Extension system, the land-grant universities,the chemical
industry, and independent pest management specialists in the further develop-
ment and practical implementation of integrated pest management.
Integrated pest management programs focused on insect control are
operational at the grower level at the present time in several cotton
growing areas, especially in the southern and western parts of the cotton
belt, and in several fruit growing areas. On cotton, as well as on fruit
crops, the adoption of integrated pest management was greatly facilitated
or even necessitated by the failure of chemical pesticides alone because
of the development of resistance by target pests. The integrated pest
management concept h'as not been reduced to practice in most other crops and
areas. However, much research and development work is currently in progress,
and it is anticipated that integrated pest management will make much
additional progress, and see application on an increasingly larger scale in
the near future.
The integrated pest management concept is presently much further
advanced in regard to insect and mite pests than in regard to weeds or
plant diseases. It is much discussed in regard to the latter fields, how-
ever. One school of thought among weed scientists advocates weed control
on an area-wide basis, including all noncrop areas and fields not in pro-
duction. By pursuing this course, weed seed reservoirs would hopefully be
eventually depleted and the weeds thus eliminated. Proponents of this
course admit that in the near term heavier use of chemical herbicides may
be required, but claim that, in the long run, the need for herbicides and the
costs of crop production would both be reduced.
Other weed scientists feel that weeds should be controlled only
to the extent necessary in productive fields, and that the least possible
disturbance of the ecosystem is the best course of action in the short
as well as in the long run. This view seems to be shared by many ecologists
(van Emden and WilliamsZ^.') .
Weed control has never relied on chemical pesticides quite to
the same extent as insect control in some of our intensive cropping systems.
120
-------
Growers generally still use most of the cultural and mechanical farming prac-
tices summarized in Section B above with a view to reducing weed pressure,
in conjunction with chemical herbicides as needed. In other words, "inte-
grated weed management" has largely been a standard farming practice long
before it was labeled as such. At most land-grant universities and in the
extension service, weed scientists are usually associated with agronomy,
botany or plant physiology departments. These organizational arrangements
at the academic level have probably contributed to the greater degree to
which weed control has been researched, taught and practiced as an inter-
disciplinary systems approach than has the insect control. Entomology
is usually established as a separate department at the state universitites,
and a separate Entomology Research Division existed within the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture until recently.
Specific integrated pest management programs for the control of
nematodes, plant diseases or other pests have not been developed. Many
current pest control practices in these fields, however, combine the use
of chemicals with good husbandry, sanitation, crop rotation and other
nonchemical pest control or suppression methods.
In summary, a great deal of interest currently exists in inte-
grated pest management in all areas of crop protection and pest control.
Publicly funded, multi-university research and development programs have
spurred cooperation among the biological disciplines involved in crop pro-
tection to a degree unprecedented in this age of specialization. Coopera-
tion with the socio-economic disciplines, however, appears to be lagging.
Nevertheless, the overall progress in integrated pest management during the
last few years has been rapid and encouraging and, if continued vigorously,
should result in the more judicious use of pesticides in the future—a
development that would benefit the American farmer as well as our society
as a whole.
121
-------
X. CASE STUDIES OF 25 SELECTED PESTICIDES
In this chapter profiles of the production, distribution, use
and environmental impact potentials of 25 pesticides are presented. The
criteria for the selection of these 25 are presented in Appendix A, and
the order of presentation of the case studies is as shown below:
Pesticide Page
1. Aldrin 126
- 2. Carbaryl 133
~ 3. Carbofuran 141
- 4. Chlordane 149
5. Diazinon 157
6. Disulfoton 166
7. Malathion 173
- 8. Methyl parathion 181
" 9. Parathion 189
10. Toxaphene 196
-11. Alachlor 205
_ 12. Atrazine 211
13. Bromacil 218
14. 2,4-D 225
_ 15. Diuron 232
- 16. MSMA 238
17. Sodium Chlorate 247
*~ 18. Trifluralin 257
19. Captan 264
20. Creosote 271
-21. Maneb 298
22. Pentachlorophenol 308
23. p-Dichlorobenzene 320
24. Methyl bromide 327
25. Organotin compounds 334
Each of the case studies is presented in the same general
format. The order of the sections of each case studjr is:
A. Product Description
B. Manufacturers and Plant Locations
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
D. Formulation, Packaging and Distribution
E. Use Patterns, including Materials Flow Diagram
F. Environmental Impacts
G. Alternatives to Use
-------
The case studies were prepared on the basis of: questionnaires
(as described in Chapter IV) completed by most of the active ingredient
manufacturers; personal and telephone interviews in every case with manu-
facturers or formulators of the subject pesticide—either during 1973
or during a related studyi' on 14 of these pesticides during 1971;
literature reviews; and our general knowledge of the chemistry, use patterns,
and effects of pesticides.
The pesticide flow diagrams warrant a brief explanation. They
are designed to give an overview of the flow of materials involved in the
production and use of the intensive-study products in terms of quantities
and geographic distribution.
Two different systems of graphic description have been employed:
(1) The "arrow system" has been used for products for which there
is only one manufacturing plant in the U.S. The flow of raw materials to
the manufacturing site is shown by unshaded flow lines. The flow of
pesticide active ingredient to the areas of use is shown by shaded arrows
which are graduated in proportion to the volume involved. In cases where
the geographic distribution of certain uses is not known (examples: some
home and garden uses), or is too small to be subdivided by regions, these
uses have been shown by single arrows pointing into a geographically
"neutral" area.
(2) The "bar system" has been employed for products that are
manufactured in more than one plant in the U.S. Locations of the manu-
facturing plants are identified by stars. Use of the product, regardless
of the origin of the supply, is shown by bars graduated in proportion to
the use volume, placed within the geographic area of use. In this system,
it was not possible to include the flow of raw materials to each manu-
facturing site in the diagram. However, this information is given in the
text where applicable and available.
In the lower left hand corner of each flow diagram, a small
table summarizes the 1972 estimated U.S. production, imports, exports,
and U.S. supply.
In cases where there are both exports from, and imports into
the U.S. of the same product, only the net import or export quantity has
been shown in the flow diagram, identified as "net export" or "net import,"
respectively.
For each product, the U.S. use is broken down by the following
geographic regions:
123
-------
Northeast (9 states):
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
North Central (12 states)
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
East
West
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
Southeast (8 states):
Maryland
Delaware
Virginia
West Virginia
South Central (8 states)
Kentucky
Tennessee
Arkansas
A labatna
Northwest (8 states):
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
Southwest (5 states):
New Mexico
Nevada
Arizona
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Mississippi
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Utah
Washington
Oregon
Alaska
California
Hawaii
124
-------
The boundaries between regions are indicated on each diagram
by dark shading of the appropriate state lines.
Where there is a substantial use of a given product within one
of the major regions, the geographic distribution is broken down further,
in some cases by individual states, on others by groups of several states.
In these instances, the boundaries between the use areas--either individual
states or groups of several states--are indicated by light shading of the
appropriate state lines.
Information on by-products generated in the course of producing
the pesticide active ingredient has been included in the flow diagrams
whenever available. In the case of single-plant products (arrow system),
this information is given in terms of the estimated total quantity of
by-products generated. In the case of multiple-plant products (bar
system), the information is given in terms of pounds of by-products
generated per pound of active ingredient produced.
An attempt to compile effluent discharge data for active ingredient
manufacturers was generally unsuccessful. Each EPA region was contacted by
letter requesting copies of the "Application for Permit to Discharge or Work
in Navigable Waters and Their Tributaries" given by each pesticide manufacturer
to the Corps of Engineers. A list of the specific companies and plant sites
in which we were interested was given to each region with a request that
they send us Parts A and B of Section II (as they were denoted in the Corps
of Engineers Form). Each region replied by letter or telephone, or both,
but only two regions were able to furnish permits. The other regions either
did not have the permits on hand or simply did not have the manpower to per-
form the time-consuming task of copying and assembling them. The EPA Per-
mits Program Division in Washington, D.C., was then contacted and was able
to furnish a number of the permits we requested. In all, four permits were
received from Region IX, 11 permits from Region VI and 13 from Washington,
D.C. The permits from Region IX and Washington, D.C., were computer print-
outs which did not contain the information we needed.
125
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 1. ALDRIN
A. Product Description
Chemical Name: 1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-l,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro-l,4-endo-
exo-5,6-dimethan.onaphthalene
Trade Names: Aldrin
Pesticide Class: Broad spectrum insecticide; chlorinated hydrocarbon
Properties; Solid, insoluble in water, very toxic; persistent in form
of dieldrin
B. Manufacturers
Name Plant Location
Shell Chemical Company Denver, Colorado
Estimated 1972
Plant Capacity Production
20 million Ib 13 million Ib
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Information on the production and waste control technology for
aldrin have been reported.!/ The reaction chemistry is:
CaC2 + H20—->Ca(OH)2 + C2H2
C1QH12
A production and waste schematic is shown in Figure 7. Aldrin
is manufactured in dedicated equipment. Raw materials are received from
various sources by rail, tank cars, and gondola cars. Liquid effluent is
processed to reduce contained aldrin to the level of solubility. Liquid
wastes presently (1974) go to an asphalt lined evaporation basin which is
diked. During summer shutdown, aldrin production equipment is washed with
toluene which goes to dieldrin manufacture. Damaged drums are cleaned as
above, incinerated, flattened, and sold as scrap steel. Solid wastes go
to EPA approved dump sites.
126
-------
ro
•Lime Pit
-*• C5H6 -J
Bicyclohepta
Diene
Generator
-* C7H8 -^
Diene
Reactor
Aldrin
Solution
Solvent
Stripper
Technical
"^"Aldrin
(Excess)
Bottoms
Figure 7 - Production and Waste Schematic for Aldrini/
-------
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
Shell packages technical grade aldrin in 28 gal. fiber Mylar-
lined drums. These are shipped by rail and truck. Aldrin is available
in a 20% granular form and a 4 Ib/gal. LFE (liquid fertilizer emulsion)
packaged in 5-gal. cans and 5-, 30-, and 55-gal. lined drums. Aldrin is
available as wettable powders, dusts, solutions, dry or liquid fertilizer
mixtures; available in varying concentrations of AI. Shipment of the
formulated products is primarily by truck. The major area of use for
aldrin is in the cornbelt.
E. Use Patterns
General
Action
Aldrin is one of the most economical and most widely used
soil insecticides. Its principal metabolite is dieldrin,
one of the most persistent of all pesticides.
Aldrin has been in large-scale commercial use in the U.S.
and in many other countries for nearly 20 years. Agri-
cultural uses accounted for an estimated two-thirds of the
domestic consumption of aldrin in 1972.
Broad-spectrum insecticide; contact, stomach and inhalation
poison, believed to affect the central nervous system.
Exact mechanism of action not known.
Target Crops
Target Pests
Application
Rates of :
Application
Major: Corn; protection of structures.
Minor: Sugarcane, tobacco; many other field, vegetable and
fruit crops.
Many soil insects; termites; some foliar insects. In cer-
tain areas, corn rootworms, seed corn beetle, seed corn
maggot, wireworms, rice water weevil, and other insects
have developed resistance.
Soil treatment; seed treatment; baits; foliar application;
soil injection. Soil application by ground equipment; mostly
broadcast, sometimes banded. Foliar application by ground
or air equipment.
Soil treatment: 2-5 Ib Al/acre.
Seed treatment: 1-2 oz Al/bu seed.
Foliar treatment: 0.25-0.5 Ib Al/acre.
Bait: 0.25 Ib Al/acre.
Termite control: 0.5% AI.
128
-------
Frequency : Usually one application per season.
Time of : Agricultural applications mostly spring and early summer;
Application applications against termites year-around.
Estimated
Distribution
(All figures in millions of pounds AI per year, 1972)
U.S. Production Imports
Exports
Domestic Consumption
13oO None
0.3
12.7
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Region
NE
SE
NC
SC
NW
SW
Agricultural
0.2
10.7
0.1
Industrial,
Commercial
0.
0.
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
Government
Agencies
Home and
Garden
Totals
0.3
0.7
11.0
0,
0.
0.
Totals
11.0
1.7
Negligible
Small
12.7
The materials flow diagram for aldrin is shown in Figure 8.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals : Against soil insects, other chlorinated hydrocarbon in-
secticides, especially heptachlor and chlordane (these are
also effective against termites); furthermore, carbofuran,
phorate and several other carbamate and organic phosphate
insecticides may be effective against soil insects. Most
of the latter do not have as broad a spectrum of efficacy
as aldrin, provide less residual control, are considerably
more expensive, and are not practical against termites.
Against foliar insects, there are a number of other chemical
insecticides available for the same purposes for which
aldrin is recommended.
129
-------
KS.NE.ND.SD..
0.6
^
•"SOUIW v-~~-v /
^ABOUN* x.^J/
0.7 jf
Southeast
•v
Aldnn
1972 Estimated:
- U.S. Production 13.0
- Imports None
- Exports 0. 3
Figure 8 - Materials Flow Diagram for Aldrin, 1972
-------
Nonchemical
No effective direct nonchemical methods of control of
soil insects affecting agricultural crops have been de-
veloped to date. Crop rotation is an indirect measure
to reduce soil insect damage. There are no effective
nonchemical methods available for control of termites.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian
Toxicity
Nontarget
Organisms
In acute toxicity tests, technical aldrin is highly
toxic to laboratory animals by the oral, dermal and in-
halation routes. It is mildly irritating to the eyes
and to the skin. Most aldrin formulations require the
signal word "Warning" on the label.
The chronic toxicity of aldrin has been studied extensively.
Some investigators have reported a "minimal effect level"
of 0.5 ppm in the diet of rats, 1.0 ppm in the diet of
dogs. The Panel on Carcinogenesis of the Commission on
Pesticides and their Relationship to Environmental Health
(U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare) assigned
aldrin to a category of pesticides "judged positive for
tumor induction on the basis of tests conducted adequately
in one or more species, the results being significant at
the 0.01 level." Tolerances for residues of aldrin have
been established for a number of crops, ranging from 0.02
to 0.1 ppm, 0.1 ppm for most commodities.
Aldrin is highly toxic to fishes, lower aquatic organisms,
birds, wild mammals, and to soil insects. It is relatively
nontoxic to other soil organisms. Aldrin and its princi-
pal metabolite, dieldrin, bioaccumulate and build up in
food chains.
Aldrin is also highly toxic to bees and beneficial in-
sects (predators and parasites) on direct contact, but
this is not a problem in its predominant use as a soil
insecticide.
131
-------
Environment : The principal metabolite of aldrin is dieldrin, one of
the most persistent pesticides. Aldrin residues in the
soil persist for years. There is substantial carryover
of aldrin residues to succeeding vegetation seasons.
Aldrin and its residues have a low propensity for move-
ment away from treated areas by volatilization, leaching
or surface run-off in water. However, the likelihood of
migration of aldrin residues adsorbed on solids by way of
soil erosion and sediment transport is substantial.
Migration on solids by wind erosion is possible.
Both aldrin and dieldrin are subject to photo-decomposition,
and are believed to be degradable by biological organisms
as well as by nonbiological factors. However, the exact
pathways are not known. The overall rate of degradation
of aldrin/dieldrin is very slow and, consequently, aldrin/
dieldrin residues in the environment are very persistent.
In the National Soils Monitoring Program, residues of
aldrin/dieldrin were found more frequently than those of
all other pesticides. Aldrin/dieldrin residues have also
been detected in many other samples of components of the
environment, including plants, animals, air and water.
In some instances, such residues have been found in places
far removed from sites of application of aldrin or dielirin.
Evaluation : No peculiar hazards to operators are known to be associated
with the use of aldrin products in accordance with label
directions.
The U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and their Relation-
ship to Environmental Health recommended that the usage
of aldrin (and that of a number of other pesticides of
similar properties) be restricted to specific essential
uses that create no known hazards to human health or to
environmental quality. A number of aldrin uses were
cancelled several years ago. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has proposed to cancel most of the re-
maining use of aldrin. Administrative proceedings in-
cluding exhaustive nationwide hearings on the benefits
and risks associated with the use of aldrin are currently
in progress. Witnesses who have testified to date have
presented widely divergent views on the problem.
132
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 2. CARBARYL
Ao Product Description
Chemical Name: 1-Naphthyl N-methylcarbamate
Trade.Names: Hexavin, Karbaspray, Ravyon, Septene, Sevin, Tricarnam
Pesticide Class: Insecticide; Alkyl carbamate
Properties: Solid; solubility in water: 40 ppm at 30°C; moderately
toxic; nonpersistent
B. Manufacturers
Name
Plant Location
Estimated 1972
Plant Capacity Production
Union Carbide Institute, West Virginia 65 million Ib 53 million Ib
Corporation (estimated)
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Information on the production and waste control technology for
carbaryl have been reported.!/ The reaction chemistry is:
Tetrahydro-
naphthalene
0-C(0)NHCH,
.CH3NH2
NaOH
1-Tetralol
1-Tetralone
0-C(0)C1
COC12
NaOH
Carbaryl
1-Naphthyl-
chloroformate
1-Naphthol
133
-------
A production and waste schematic is shown in Figure 9.
Union Carbide manufactures carbaryl by a combination of batch
and continuous^processes. Raw materials for production are made on-site
and received by pipeline ortank carJ__^AJLl--p^sticide-containTHg~wasTer
water goes to the plant's secondary waste treatment system and then to a
river. This effluent contains only 0.01-1 ppm carbaryl. Toxic vents are
either flared or go to NaOH scrubbers. Nontoxic vents go to a condenser
and are then vented to the atmosphere. Standard hoods are used in the
packaging area and the recovered material is recycled. The heavy residue
solid wastes are burned. One shutdown for cleaning is made per year, but
numerous maintenance clean-ups are made, the washings go to the process
waste treatment system.
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
Technical carbaryl is available in two forms: pelletized, 99% AT,
packaged in a 50-Ib bag, and concentrates of 50-97% AI, also in 50-lb bags.
Both are shipped by rail and truck. Union Carbide provides the following
formulations: Sevin® wettable powders of 50% and 80%; Sevin® 50% dust base;
granules of 5% to 10%; Sevin® 80% and 85% sprayables, and 4 Ib/gal flowable
suspensions in oil and molasses. It is also available as baits.
E. Use Patterns
General
Action
Target Crops
Carbaryl has been in large-scale use in the U.S. and in
many other countries for more than 15 years. It is still
the most widely used carbamate insecticide in the U.S.
today. It has a broad spectrum of effectiveness on in-
sects, is only slightly toxic to mammals, not persistent,
and degrades rapidly in the environment after application.
Its spectrum of insect control overlaps in part with that
of some chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides such as DDT,
toxaphene and others.
Broad-spectrum insecticide, contact and stomach poison, no
systemic action. Reversible inhibitor of cholinesterase.
Soybeans; sweet_corn; ornamentals and turf; field^corn^;
forest and shade trees; cottonydeciduQus_tree fruits; many
other field, vegetable, fruit and nut crop; poultry and
pets.
134
-------
to
Ui
CH4 H2O
LA
Naphthalene
Air
Vent
Hydrogen
Plant
CO
i
Phosgene
Unit
NaOH-
CH3NH2-
Tetrahydro
Naphthalene
Unit
L
H2
:oci2.
Tetralol
Unit
Condenser
.H2O-
Naphthol
Unit
Chloroformate
Unit
•Vent-
NaCI
'H2O
Carbaryl
Unit
NaCI
Flare
Heavy Residue _^. . .
_ „ -^Incinerafor
From Process
Solvent is Used for
Some Steps
Packaging
I
Product
Secondary
Waste
Treatment
Plant
Figure 9 - Production and Waste Schematic for Carbaryl!/
-------
Target Pests :
Application
Rates of :
Application
Frequency
Time of
Corn earworm, armyworms, gypsy moth, European corn borer,
cutworms, corn rootworm beetles, pink bollworm, leafhoppers,
scale insects, many other insects. Mites, lice, fleas,
ticks, bedbugs on and around poultry and pets. Ineffective
against most aphids, plant-feeding mites, and flies. Some
resistance of target pests.
Largest volume use is foliar spray (wettable powders much
more widely used than the flowable suspension) to agri-
culture crops, trees and forests by air or ground equip-
ment. Much smaller quantities of AI go into baits, dusts
and granules which are also applied by ground or air equip-
ment. Dips, washes, sprays or dusts on animals.
1.0-2.5 Ib Al/acre for most field, forage and truck crops
(lower or higher rates labeled for some uses);
1.0 Ib AI/100 gal. for most fruit crops;
2.0-5.07o dusts or 0.5-1.0% AI dips or washes for use on
poultry and pets.
1-10 applications per season or per year.
Throughout the growing season on crops. On poultry and
Application pets, throughout the year as required.
Estimated
Distribution
U.S. Production
53
(All figures in millions of pounds AI per year, 1972):
Imports
None
Exports
28
Domestic Consumption
25*
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
Region Agricultural
NE
SE
NC
SC
NW
SW
Totals
1.5
7.5
4.5
3.5
0.7
1.3
19.0
Industrial,
Commercial
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
Government
Agencies
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.6
Sub- Home and
totals Garden£/
2.0
7.9
4.8
3.9
0.9
2.0
a/
Totals-
1.0
af Geographic distribution not known.
1.5
21.5
3.5
25
Industrial sources have estimated the domestic consumption of carbaryl to be
as low as 16.5 million pounds, but tend to confirm our production esti-
mate and the comparable sizes of exports and domestic consumption.
136
-------
The materials flow diagram for carbaryl is shown in Figure 10.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals : Many other chemical insecticides control some or many of
the corp insects controlled by carbaryl, but carbaryl is
unique in regard to its combination of properties, i.e.,
low mammalian toxicity, low persistence, and efficacy
against many economically important Lepidoptera and
Coleoptera.
A number of other insecticides are effective against the
insects on poultry and pets against which carbaryl is
recommended.
Nonchemical
Biological control agents and integrated insect management
methods are being developed and employed against some of
the insects controlled by carbaryl, especially cotton and
fruit insects.
No effective nonchemical alternatives have been developed
to date for the control of insects on poultry and pets.
Good sanitation and husbandry practices help, but may not
be sufficient by themselves to prevent insect problems or
abate existing ones.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian : Carbaryl is slightly toxic to laboratory animals in acute
Toxicity toxicity tests via the oral, dermal and inhalation routes.
It is not irritating to the eyes, the skin, or the respira-
tory tract. No sensitization reactions or cumulative toxic
effects have been reported. The most widely used carbaryl
formulations carry the signal word "Caution" on the label.
In chronic toxicity tests, the no-effect level in the diet
was 200 ppm for rats in a 2-year study, 400 ppm for dogs
in a 1-year study. There were no adverse effects on the
reproduction of rats fed 200 ppm in their diet for 3 genera-
tions . Tolerances for residues of carbaryl have been
established for a large number of commodities, ranging
from 1 to 100 ppm, 5 to 10 ppm for most crops.
137
-------
- U.S. Production 53.0
- Imports None
- bxports
- U.S. Supply 25.0
Figure 10 - Materials Flow Diagram for Carbaryl, 1972
-------
The Panel on Teratogenicity of Pesticides of the Secre-
tary's Commission on Pesticides and Their Relationship
to Environmental Health (U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare) reported that carbaryl produced terato-
genetic symptoms in tests on mice and dogs. These effects
appeared to be dose-related and were not seen at the lower
rates of application in these tests. Extensive tests with
monkeys have failed to produce teratogenesis in primates.
The possible significance of these findings in regard to
human health has not been established.
Nontarget
Organisms
Carbaryl is slightly toxic to fishes, moderately toxic
to lower aquatic organisms, relatively nontoxic to birds,
wild mammals and soil organisms. It is highly toxic to
honeybees and to some, but not all, beneficial insects
(predators and parasites). There are no data on its
possible buildup in food chains. Because of its lack of
persistence and rapid metabolism, this is not likely to
occur.
Environment
Applied between 10 and 25 days after full bloom of apples,
carbaryl will produce fruit thinning. A single application
needs to be carefully timed if this is desired. If apple
thinning is to be avoided, carbaryl should not be used
until at least 30 days after bloom.
The insecticidal effectiveness of carbaryl persists for
about 3 to 10 days on treated plants, 3 to 4 months on
protected inert surfaces, and 3 weeks .in the soil. The
half-life of soil residues is of the order of 7 to 10 days.
There is no carryover of soil residues from one season
to the next. Carbaryl degrades rapidly in the environ-
ment after application and is not persistent.
Carbaryl residues may dissipate in part through volatiliza-
tion. Leaching from the soil is possible based on laboratory
studies, but is not likely to occur to a significant ex-
tent under field conditions because carbaryl is not recom-
mended for incorporation into the soil and, if it does
penetrate into soil, is rapidly degraded. Likelihood of
movement of carbaryl residues from treated fields by sur-
face run-off in water or on solids likewise is low.
139
-------
Carbaryl is degradable by biological organisms as well as
by nonbiological factors including sunlight. Carbaryl
appears to be degraded by several different pathways.
A number of metabolites and degradation produces have
been identified; all are less toxic to laboratory mammals
than the parent compound.
Evaluation : The handling and use of carbaryl formulations in accordance
with label directions does not present any serious hazards
to operators. No other serious hazards to human health
have been attributed to the use of this insecticide.
There are no indications or reports of hazards ':o ter-
restrial or aquatic ecosystems outside of target areas
and their vicinities from the proper use of carbaryl.
140
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 3. CARBOFURAN
A. Product Description
Chemical Name; 2,3-Dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl methyl carbamate
Trade Names; Furadan
Pesticide Class: Systemic insecticide, acaricide and miticide; a
cholinesterase inhibitor
Properties; White, odorless crystalline solid; MP 150°C; solubility in
water is 250 to 700 ppm at 25°C
B. Manufacturers
Name
Agricultural
Chemical Divi-
sion,
FMC Corporation
Plant Location
Baltimore, Maryland
Middleport, New York
Plant Capacity
7 million Ib
(estimated)
Estimated 1972
Production
6 million Ib
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Carbofuran is a relatively new product, s*Ali_undet^j2fl^ent, and
manufactured only by FMC, Agricultural Chemical Division. Agricultural
Chemical Division officials declined to reveal details of the production
method, but supplied copies of pertinent patents covering their processes.
The reaction sequence below and the flow chart shown in Figure 11 were
developed from the patents. The steps through the benzofuranol are ap-
parently conducted in Baltimore and the final step is completed in
Middleport. A major plant expansion was underway in late 1973.
The reaction chemistry is believed to be:
141
-------
Methallyl
Chloride
Cotechol-
Acetonej
K2C03V-
Kl J
I
Methylloxy
Phenol
Unit
HoO
Methallyloxy Phenol
Solid
Wastes
Volatile
Wastes
Rearrangement/
Cyclization
Reactor
The Benzofuranol
CH3NCO »"
Ether 1 ( »•
(CH3)3N
Carbofuran
Reactor
• Carbofuran
Wastes
Figure 11 - Production and Waste Schematic for Carbofuran
142
-------
Refluxing
CH2 Acetone
+ C1CH2-C-CH3
Base,
CH
200°C
CH2-C-CH3
KI Cat
Catechol Methallyl " Methallyloxy
Chloride
Phenol
CH3NCO
Ether
Triethylamine
Methyl
Isocyanate
(CH,)
2,3-Dihydro-
2,2-Dimethyl-
7-Benzofuranol
0-CO-NHCH3
(CH3)
Carbofuran
The pollution control system for liquid waste streams consists of neutraliza-
tion, concentration equalization and settling to remove solids before dis-
charge.
D. Formulation. Packaging, and Distribution
The following formulations are known: Furadan 2G (2% carbofuran,
50-Ib bag), Furadan 3G (3% carbofuran, 50-lb bag), Furadan 5G (5% carbofuran,
30-Ib bag), Furadan 10G (10% carbofuran, 30-lb bag), and Furadan 4 flowable
(4 Ib carbofuran/gal., 1-gal. container). The 107» granules are used most
widely.
FMC did not provide information on their shipping procedures.
E. Use Patterns
General
\
I Carbofuran is the most effective insecticide currently
1 available against corn rootworms, including forms resistant
\against other insecticides. It was commercially introduced
only during the last few years. Its use has increased
rapidly and continues to increase, mainly because of its
superior effectiveness against corn rootworms and other
soil pests as well as its systemic properties for control
of foliar feeding pests. It reached the market at a time
of increasing demand and prices for corn.
Emulsifiable concentrate formulations cannot be made due
to lack of solubility of carbofuran in commonly used non-
polar organic pesticide solvents.
143
-------
Action
There were no significant nonfarm uses of carbofuran in
1972.
Broad-spectrum insecticide, miticide and nematocide;
contact, stomach and plant-systemic toxicant. Reversible
inhibitor of cholinesterase.
Target
Crops
Target
Pests
Corn; alfalfa; peanuts; rice; sugarcane; tobacco; potatoes;
sugar beets; sorghum.
Corn rootworm larvae (including species and strains re-
sistant against other insecticides); alfalfa weevils;
nematodes; rice water weevil; sugarcane borer; other soil
and foliar insects.
Application
Rates of :
Application
Frequency
Time of
Soil treatment by ground equipment, usually in-furrow
placement or banded over the row. Broadcast application
of granules by ground or air. Foliar spray treatments by
ground or air.
0.75 to 1.0 Ib Al/acre; up to 5.0 Ib Al/acre for certain
uses; 0.5 Ib Al/acre on rice.
Soil application once per season. One or two foliar
applications per season.
Soil applications at planting time in the spring. Foliar
Application applications early to midsummer.
Estimated :
Distribution
(All figures in millions of pounds AI per year, 1972).
U.S. Production
6.0
Imports
None
Exports
1.0
Domestic Consumption
5.0
-------
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Region Agricultural
NE
SE
NC
SC
w
Totals
0.1
0.1
4.4
0.2
0.2
5.0
Industrial, Government Home and
Commercial Agencies Garden
Totals
0.1
0.1
4.4
0.2
0.2
Negligible Negligible Negligible 5.0
The materials flow diagram for carbofuran is shown in Figure 12.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals
Nonchemical
Other chemical insecticides including chlorinated hydro-
carbons, organic phosphates and carbamates are available
for control of corn rootworms and other soil pests.
Carbojuxa.n_is the most effectiv e_J.nsectijci de__current^y
available_aaint_resistant corn rootworms. It is also
of the jmosj:_j;f feet lye i insecticide s aga i
weevlls^and either insecjts^against which it is recommended.
Other chemical insecticides are available for the same
control purposes.
No effective, specific nonchemical methods have been
developed as yet for the control of soil insects or nematodes
affecting farm crops. Adjustment of crop rotation is an
indirect measure.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian : In toxicity tests on laboratory mammals, carbofuran is
Toxicity highly toxic if applied orally. It is a direct inhibitor
of cholinesterase. Topical applications to mucous mem-
brane will elicit a localized effect without systemic in-
toxication. Small quantities in the eye cause constric-
tion of the pupil. The 4 Ib Al/gal flowable and the 75%
wettable powder formulations of carbofuran require labeling
as highly toxic pesticides, including the signal word
"Danger - Poison" and skull and crossbones. The 107o and
145
-------
-p-
O-"
Carbofuron Millions
1972 estimated: Lbs. AI
- U.S. Production 6.0
- Tmnorf^ None
- Exports 1.0
- U. S. Use
5.0
Figure 12 - Materials Flow Diagram for Carbofuran, 1972
-------
Nontarget
Organisms
Environment
lower concentrated granular formulations are classified
as moderately toxic and require the signal word "Warning."
In chronic toxicity tests, the following no-effect levels
in the diets of the animals were established: 25 ppm on
rats over 2 years; 20 ppm on dogs over 2 years; 10 ppm on
rats over 3 generations; 50 ppm on dogs over one genera-
tion. Tolerances for residues of carbofuran have been
established for a number of crops, ranging from 0.02 ppm
(milk) to 20 ppm (alfalfa hay), 0.1 ppm for corn grain.
Carbofuran is toxic to fishes, birds, wild mammals and to
the soil fauna. It is only slightly toxic or relatively
nontoxic to other soil organisms. There are no data on
its toxicity to lower aquatic organisms. Laboratory model
ecosystem studies indicate that carbofuran is readily bio-
degradable and does not build up in food chains.
Carbofuran is highly toxic to bees and to beneficial in-
sects (parasites and predators) on direct contact. This
is a potential problem mainly with foliar applications.
The behavior and persistence of carbofuran in the environ-
ment have been studied quite extensively. Carbofuran is
moderately persistent in the soil. Its half-life in
treated soil is of the order of 1-2 months. Residues
generally decline to 10% or less of the applied rate in a
single growing season. Carbofuran does not volatilize
appreciably from treated areas. There may be some leaching
in light soils, little if any in heavy soils. If heavy
rainfall follows soon (within 1 to 2 weeks) after foliar
or soil applications, there may be substantial run-off
from target areas. In a lysimeter study, carbofuran
residues in run-off water were 20 to 30 times higher than
residues in the sediment. Carbofuran is degradable by
biological organisms and by nonbiological factors. Some
metabolites have been identified.
Evaluation : Carbofuran formulations are highly or moderately toxic,
depending upon the concentration of active ingredient.
Aside from the operator hazards inherent in products of
high acute mammalian toxicity, there are no indications
of other serious hazards to human health from the use of
carbofuran in accordance with label directions.
147
-------
Carbofuran has a broad spectrum of biological effectiveness.
Carbofuran residues may be transported away from target sites
by surface run-off or, in the case of light soils, leaching.
This is likely to occur only if heavy rainfalls follow soon
after application. In such circumstances, terrestrial or
aquatic ecosystems in the vicinity of target areas may be
adversely affected.
148
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 4. CHLORDANE
A. Production Description
Chemical Name: Mixture of Octachloro-4,7-methanotetrahydroindane and
Related Compounds
Trade Names: Belt, Chlordan, Chlor Kil, Corodane, Kypchlor, Octachlor,
Ortho-Klor, Synklor, Topiclor 20, Velsicol 1068
Pesticide Class: Broad spectrum insecticide; Chlorinated hydrocarbon
Properties: Solid, insoluble in water; moderately toxic
B. Manufacturers
Name Plant Location
Velsicol Marshall, Illinois
Plant Capacity
30 million Ib
(estimated)
Estimated
Annual
Production
20 million Ib
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Information on the production and waste control technology for
chlordane have been reported.i' The process reactions are approximately
as follows:
Naphtha
C12 + NaOH (aq.)—
NaCIO (aq.) + C5H6-
C5C16 + C5H6
Chlordene + C12
Cyclopentadiene
NaCIO (aq.)
C5C16 + NaCl (alk. solu.)
Chlordene (CmH^Cl^)
> Tech. chlordane
related epds.)
149
-------
A production and waste schematic are shown in Figure 13.
Spent hypochlorite wastewater is about 27, NaOH and 400 ppm
The production and handling area is diked with runoff and process water
going to deep well disposal on the plant site. Tank cars are leased,
dedicated to chlordane, and if cleaned, the washings go to deep wells.
Chlordane is made by a continuous process. Velsicol receives raw
products for its production by pipeline and tank cars.
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
Most of the chlordane is sold in the technical grade to independent
formulators and is shipped in tarks, 30-gal. and 5-gal. drums by rail and
truck. Chlordane is available in the JL oiiuwing formulations: 4 Ib/gal.
and 8 Ib/gal. emulsifiable concentrates; 2 and 20% oil solutions; 10, 6,
and 57, dusts; 33-1/3, 25, 20, 10, and 5% granules; and 25 and 407o wettable
powders.
E. Use Patterns
General
Action
Target Crops
Technical chlordane consists of a heavily chlorinated
mixture of isomers. It was the first cyclodiene chemical
to be developed for insect control and liasjoeenin com-
mercial use for more than 20 years. It is a versatile,
broad-spectrum insecticide. Its use volume has recently
experienced a renewed increase. Analytical techniques for
chlordane are not as refined in regard to specificity and
sensitivity as for some other pesticides. It is therefore
difficult to make sweeping comparisons, but it is claimed
that chlordane residues are somewhat less persistenc in the
environment than those of, for instance.,DDT, aldrin or
dieldrin.
NgnagrjLcultural uses accounted for an estimated 807o of total
U.S. consumptipnof chlordane in 1972. ~~"
Broad-spectrum insecticide; contact, inhalation and stomach
poison. Stimulates the central nervous system. Exact mode
of action not known. No systemic action on plants.
Corn; potatoes; protection of structures; lawn and turf;
many other field, vegetable and fruit crops; ornamentals,
shade trees; lives tock.
150
-------
I/I
Naphtha
NaOH
ci2H
Vapor Phase ~
""*" Cracker "~ *" V
-»• Reactor
—
80-90 %
"H/. •"- D"*—
\
Manufacture
-*• Chlorinator -•• Filter -^ C5CIO -•
*
Waste Wate
(NaCI + Nc
i
Vent
v*. Wet
Scrubber
r Scrub Sol
•OH) Water
!
^ 1 SO2CI2
x-*i /^ i r
j Generator)
I
ids J*-C
Make-Up
SO2
Condenser -
f
Diels-Alder
9 Reaction
70-85°C
_^S02CI2?^
(Excess)
. , . Ch
.ondenser*—
1
Vacuum
-^Vent
-^ Chlordene
1 1
Chlorinator
1
lordane Mixture/
)2CI2?/ SO2?
1
Deep
Well
Disposal
Clay Pit
Vent
Technical
Chlordane
Figure 13 - Production and Waste Schematic for Chlordane—
I/
-------
Target Pests :
Application
Rate of :
Application
Frequency
Time of :
Application
Estimated :
Distribution
White grubs, cutworms, wireworms, Japanese beetle larvae,
other beetle larvae, other soil insects; termites; grass-
hoppers; ants; some foliar insects; household insects,
stored products insects, livestock insects. Resistance of
target insects in some areas.
Soil treatment (most important); some foliar applications;
baits; seed treatment (small); indoor spray applications.
Soil applications by ground equipment, predominantly broad-
cast. Livestock dips or sprays.
Soil treatment: 2-5 Ib Al/acre, up to 10 Ib Al/acre for
some uses.
Seed treatment: 2 oz Al/bushel seed.
Foliar treatment: 1-3 Ib Al/acre or 1 Ib AI/100 gaL.
Termite control: 1% AI in water or oil.
Bait: 1 Ib Al/acre.
Indoor applications: 2-3% AI sprays, 5-6% AI dusts„
Use on animals: 2-4 Ib AI/100 gal.
Against soil insects on crops: One application per season.
Other uses: one or more treatments per year, as required.
Agricultural uses: Mostly spring at planting time. Use
against termites, lawn, garden and household insects year-
round in the South, during warmer months of the year in the
North. Against animals insects: Throughout the year as
required.
(All figures in millions of pounds Al/year, 1972)
U.S. Production
20
Imports Exports Domestic Consumption
None 5 15
152
-------
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Industrial, Government Sub- Home and-'
Region Agricultural Commercial Agencies**/ Totals Garden Totals
NE
SE
NC
SC
NW
SW
0,
0,
1.7
0.
0.
0.1
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.3
0.3
1.0
1.7
1.8
3.4
1.6
0.4
1.1
Totals
3.0
6.5
0.5
10.0
5.0
15.0
a/ Too small to break out, included in subtotals.
b/ Geographic distribution not known.
The materials flow diagram for chlordane is shown in Figure 14,
F. Alternatives
Chemicals : Against soil inspects; other chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticides, especially aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor
(these are also effective against termites); furthermore,
carbofuran, phorate and several other carbamate and organic
phosphate insecticides. These latter products are effective
against some soil insects, but have a narrower spectrum of
effectiveness, are more expensive, and are not satisfactory
for termite control.
Nonchemical
Against lawn and turf insects; other chlorinated hydrocarbon
Insecticides, many organic phosphate and carbamate insecti-
cides .
Against household insects; other chlorinated hydrocarbon,
organic phosphate and carbamate insecticides.
No effective nonchemical methods of control of soil insects
affecting farm crops have been developed to date. Adjustment
of crop rotation is an indirect measure to reduce soil in-
sect damage.
153
-------
MICHIGAN
X1 WISCONSIN
North Central
3.4
»-—,._ —SOUTH DAKOTA
Northwest «HO'"'""' SVOM/NC
Northeast ^-
•—ni^W^'* Southeast
Chlordane Millions
1972 Estimated: Lbs. M
- U.S. Production 20.0
- Inports None
- Exports 5. 0
- U.S. Supply 15.0
Figure 14 - Materials Flow Diagram for Chlordane, 1972
-------
Parasites and diseases are known to affect some
lawn and turf soil insects, especially the
Japanese beetle. To this date, no systems have
been developed for the general use of these bio-
logical agents for the control of lawn and turf
insects.
There are no effective nonchemical methods for
the control of termites.
Good housekeeping and sanitation will reduce
household insect problems, but may not solve
them completely.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian
Toxicity
Nontarget
Organisms
Chlordane is moderately toxic to laboratory ani-
mals in acute toxicity tests via the oral, dermal
and inhalation routes. It is moderately irritating
to the eyes, and slightly irritating to the skin
and the respiratory tract. Emulsifiable concen-
trate formulations of chlordane require the signal
word "Warning" on the label. Granular and dust
formulations of lower concentration require the
signal word "Caution". Prolonged exposure to sub-
acute concentrations of chlordane may produce
increasingly severe toxic effects.
In chronic toxicity tests, the no-effect level
in the diet of laboratory animals was between
3 and 15 ppm. Tolerances for residues of
chlordane have been established for a large
number of commodities, all at 0.3 ppm.
Chlordane is highly toxic to fishes and lower
aquatic organisms. It is slightly toxic to
birds, moderately toxic to wild mammals, highly
toxic to soil insects, and moderately toxic to
some soil bacteria and to earthworms. Chlordane
is highly toxic to bees and to beneficial insects
(parasites and predators) on direct contact, but
this does not take place in its predominant uses
where it is applied to the soil or indoors.
Chlordane faioaccumulates in oysters. There are
no data on its build-up in food chains.
155
-------
Environment : Chlordane is a persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticide. It persists in the soil for more
than one year, sometimes for many years. Chlordane
residues are carried over to the following season.
Chlordane may volatilize to some extent from
surfaces exposed to atmospheric conditions. Its
propensity for leaching from treated soil is low.
It may migrate from treated areas adsorbed on
soil solids by erosion and sediment transport.
Chlordane is degradable by biological organisms and
by nonbiological factors. Its overall rate of de-
gradation is slow. Degradation is believed to
result eventually in hydrophilic products such as
chlorohydrin and glycols, but the exact pathways
are not known.
Evaluation : Chlordane formulations do not present peculiar
operator hazards. There are no reports of other
serious direct hazards to human health from the
use of chlordane in accordance with label direct-
ions.
Chlordane products are relatively inexpensive to
the user. Thus, there are no strong economic
restraints against unnecessary use or overuse.
In view of the persistence and broad spectrum
of biological efficacy of chlordane, the U. S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and their
Relationship to Environmental Health has recommend-
ed that its usage (and that of a number of other
pesticides of similar properties) be restricted to
specific, essential uses which create no known
hazard to human health or to the quality of the
environment.
156
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 5. DIAZINON
A. Product Description
Chemical Name; 0,0-Diethyl-0-(2-isopropyl-4-methyl-6-pyrimidinyl)phos-
phorothioate
Trade Names; G-24480, Basudin, Diazajet, Diazide, Diazol, Dazzel, Gardentox,
Spectracide
Pesticide Class; Insecticide; organophosphate
Properties: Amber liquid; B.P., 83-84°C at 0.002mm Hg (89°C at 0.1 mm)
B. Manufacturers
Estimated Annual
Name Plant Location Plant Capacity Production
Ciba-Geigy Corporation Mclntosh, Alabama 15 million Ib 12 million Ib
(estimated)
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
The reaction chemistry for the production of diazinon is believed
(based on a visit with Geigy personnel) to be as follows:
HC1 NH3
i-C3H7CN + CH3OH - _ — ^ i-C3H7C(OCH3)=NH.HCl _^ i-C3H7C(NH2)=NH.HCl + CH3OH
iso- Methanol methyl imidoisobutyrate isobutyramidine
Butyronitrile hydrochloride hydrochloride
i-C3H7C(NH2)=NH.HCl + CH3COCH2COOC2H5 NaOH
Ethyl acetoacetate ^ + CEOE + 2H 0 + NaCl
2-isopropyl-4-methyl-
6-hydroxypyrimidine
CH3
(C2H50)2P(S)C1 + ii - - ^ r H +NaCl+NaHC0
II ) I j-f + waun- wanuu3
Diethylthio-
phosphoryl chloride Diazinon
157
-------
^ tentative production and waste schematic for diazinon is shown in
Figure 15.
C. Production and Waste Control Technology
Ciba-Geigy purchases most of the raw materials for diazinon pro-
duction. There are a number of sources for isobutyronitrile including
Air Products (Pace, Florida); Union Carbide (Institute, West Virginia);
Eastman (Kingsport, Tennessee) and possibly others. The alcohols are
obtained mainly from Gulf Coast sources. Ammonia is obtained principally
from Louisiana (Donaldsonville, Geismar), some quantities are obtained
internally. Acetoacetic ester is purchased from Union Carbide, Eastman,
and possibly others. These chemicals are received by bulk transport
principally by tank cars but some by tank trucks. Large storage facilities
are available at the Alabama plant to hold supplies,
In the first step of their production process, isobutyronitrile
is reacted with methanol and HC1 to produce the corresponding imido ester
hydrochloride. There are no by-products to this reaction except excess
hydrochloric acid which is recycled. In this reaction., the alcohol acts
as a shielding agent.
In the second step, the ester is treated with ammonia to form the
corresponding amidine. There are also no by-products to this step; the
methyl alcohol is recovered by distillation and recycled.
The next step is the most critical and most difficult step in
the production of diazinon. The amidine is condensed with acetoacetic
ester in a reaction which is very sensitive to control. It is relatively
easy to obtain 70% yields, but, in order for the process to be economically
successful, 957» yields must be obtained. The resulting pyrimidine is in-
soluble in the reaction mixture (the sodium salt, however, is very soluble)
and it is separated along with small amounts of other insoluble inorganic
compounds (this separation does not generate filter solids which would re-
quire disposal). The aqueous stream plus alcohols and other organic
products (including acetone) are subjected to a stripping process in which
pure materials are separated and recycled. The residual aqueous solution
is transferred to a biological sewage treatment plant and the residual
materials from this process are incinerated. The pyrimidine product is
subjected to a drying step.
The next step is the reaction of the pyrimidine with diethyl-
thiophosphoryl chloride. Ciba-Geigy purchases the chlorinated phosphate
ester and therefore do not have waste treatment facilities for sulfide and
phosphorus wastes. The manufacture of this ester causes the most notorious
waste treatment problems in the production of phosphorus-sulfur pesticides
158
-------
«l
en
^ I
D O
o-.t:
lj 0
t
o c
.° »
o> E
^ 0 C
O V JD
S i— a.
u
"£
o
CD
— ^- Incinerator
O
O w
3 "O
4)
3
-o
2 o
« X ,
"5^ 0?
^-*— ^s
«$ ^
u c
u
x
i
X ,_,
?N
^ c .2
^_^ 3^ -^
o j S
O < ** — I
•>— •
V. n
x
CO
U
?
(U
LLJ O
il
J cS .^
^
z n
u ' '
tv. ]-
^ o
o — <*>
.i x u
i> .^ i)
a: _i oi
ft
O i
U o ._ _ E
-£i o « U S
^<— It —• *!•
- u « -t
^ ^ 1/1 CO
-D E
11
LJ 1/1
S r^n
1 c TJ
X 0 c
* 1 1 S 3
*"-?—*• S-2'i — ^ o
5 J ti S ^
5- § s "
^ O Oi LU
C3H
CH3COCH2COOC2H5-».
NoOH *•
t>
£ g
8-8.
$ .2
Q Q
IA
JJ CM
* 8
>°
A
T s
5 .£ g
_^ " fc. E fcr ^ ^
fi * jl
•- n it
u
i/>
Q.
CN
o"^
m c
~T 4> .^
«>•*
u "o
•— 'i/i
'o «
< £
t
a
"»
o.
UJ
l—
,0 "
U E
U X g
O o 5.
Z Z u5
j i
c .1
.2 |
~"^ 0 ._ ^
J^ U.
'§•?
a. o
CO
o
U
CM
O
UOUIZOIQ-^I
Filtration
i ,
k.
u
Q.
O-
i/i
Figure 15 - Production and Waste Schematic for Diazinon
159
-------
of this kind. The reaction is reported to proceed in 85% yield. There are
toxic by-products formed during this reaction. These are the combined
ester related to TEPP. Some of the TEPP by-products contain sulfur. These
materials are removed from the reaction mixture, evidently by a filtration
step, and are decontaminated by a treatment with acid. The reaction mixture
is treated with sodium carbonate. The resulting product is sodium bicarbon-
ate, which, along with sodium chloride, is also removed in the filtration
step. The filtration step results in the removal of a haze which is formed
in the brown reaction mixture. It is believed that the brown material in
the diazinon solution is a sulfur polymer. Diazinon itself is water white
and almost odorless.
Ciba-Geigy has made adaptation in the production of four pesticides
at Mclntosh. Recycling of by-products was necessary in order to meet environ-
mental standards. They have found that the recovery of the by-products
actually pays for the required adaptations.
There is no air pollution problem in the production of diazinon.
However, carbon dioxide is evolved during the primidine-phosphoryl chloride
operation (caused by the addtion of sodium carbonate to the acidic reaction
mixture). The equipment is dedicated and can be run either continuously
or batch-wise.
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
Ciba-Geigy makes the following formulations: a 50% wettable
powder and a 50% dust, several types of 4 Ib/gal. emulsifiable concentrates,
a 14.3% granular, 2% dust and 2% granular, and an 8 Ib/gal. (85-90% AI)
sold to Pest Control Operators and agricultural formulators. The liquid
concentrate of the formulations are shipped from Mclntosh in bulk in 5-
and 55-gal. drums and 1-gal. F-style cans. Exports are shipped in 55-gal.
drums.
Ciba-Geigy estimated usage breakdown as follows: one-third -
agriculture, one-third - pest control, one-third - garden uses. Agricul-
tural usage is primarily in California, Arizona, South Texas, Florida,
and New Jersey. The largest PCO use is in the "southern cockroach belt."
Diazinon is also very effective against lawn insects affecting southern
grasses.
The proportions of production that is exported has been estimated
as high as 50%. Some of this is sent to Switzerland as technical., and then
formulated there. In addition, some of the 4 Ib/gal. formulation is ex-
ported on AID programs to Pakistan, Vietnam, Bagladesh, and other countries.
No sizable quantities of diazinon are imported, although it is also produced
160
-------
in Japan and Israel and by other countries. Most of Ciba-Geigy1s worldwide
diazinon requirements are fulfilled by their Alabama plant.
E. Use Patterns
General
Action
Target Crops
Target Pests
Diazinon has been commercially available for almost 20 years,
It is a versatile insecticide that controls a wide variety
of foliar and soil insects and some species of nematodes on
agricultural crops, lawns, turf, and ornamentals, plus a
number of insects affecting man and animals. It is classi-
fied as "moderately toxic" to mammals, and it is not per-
sistent in the environment.
About 407» of the estimated U.S. consumption of diazinon in
1972 was used for agricultural purposes.
Broad-spectrum insecticide; contact, stomach and inhalation
action; inhibits cholinesterase and stimulates the nervous
system.
Corn, alfalfa, other field and forage crops; vegetable,
fruit and nut crops; lawn and turf; ornamentals; homes,
buildings, premises, other indoor areas; livestock.
Many foliar and soil insects, some nematodes; cockroaches
and other indoor pests; livestock ectoparasites. Controls
some insects, especially soil insects and household insects,
that have become resistant to chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticides. Other insects, including houseflies and
certain livestock insects, have developed resistance to
diazinon in some areas.
Application
Rates of :
Application
Frequency
Foliar spray applications by ground or air equipment. Soil
applications and applications to lawn and turf by ground
equipment. Seed treatment (planter box). Indoor applica-
tions by spray equipment.
0.25-1 Ib Al/acre, or 0.25-1.5 Ib AI/100 gal. for most
foliar treatments (higher rates for some); 1-4 Ib Al/acre,
up to 10 Ib Al/acre for soil treatments, 0.5-1 oz Al/bu
for planter-box seed treatments; 0.5-1% for indoor pests.
1 to 6-8 applications per season or per year.
161
-------
Time of : On annual crops, from planting time throughout the growing
Application season. On perennial plantings and for other uses,
throughout the year as required.
Estimated : (All figures in millions of Ib Al/year, 1972)
Distribution
U.S. Production
12
Imports
None
Exports
5
Domestic Consumption
7
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Industrial, Government
Region Agricultural Commercial Agencies Subtotals
NE
SE
NC
SC
W
Totals
0.1
0.3
1.8
0.8
3.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
1.2
0,
0,
0.
0.3
0.1
0.8k/
0.4
0.8
2.1
0.6
1.1
5.0
Home and
Garden3./ Totals
2.0
7.0
a_/ Geographic distribution not known.
b/ This quantity uncorrected for an apparent error in data for usage by
federal government agencies. Governmental use may be as high as
1.6 million pounds (see Table XXII).
The materials flow diagram for diazinon is shown in Figure 16.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals : A number of other organic phosphate and carbamate insecti-
cides (including malathion, fenthion, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl,
propoxur, and others) are available for control of the
insects against which diazinon is used., Some chlorinated
hydrocarbon insecticides are also used for some of the same
control purposes. No other single current insecticide has
the same combination of physical, chemical, biological
and economic properties as diazinon, but a number of other
insecticides are available for each of the major uses of
diazinon.
162
-------
; r y
' ''-' "
X ^IKW" ,-»
/_---•" .^5\
IHC>ROL ^jy
Diazinon Millions
1972 Estimated: Lbs. AI
- U.S. Production 12.0
- Imports None
- Exports 5.0
Figure 16 - Materials Flow Diagram for Diazinon
-------
Nonchemical
Biological control agents and integrated pest
management methods are being developed for control
of some of the foliar insects controlled by diazinon,
especially on fruit and vegetable crops. No specific
nonchemical methods are currently available for
control of many of the remaining insect pests against
which it is used. This applies particularly to soil
insects, nematodes, and household and livestock
insects. Good farming practices, sanitation and
housekeeping often are only partial remedies against
such pests.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian
Toxicity
In acute toxicity tests on laboratory animals,
diazinon was moderately toxic via the oral, dermal
and inhalation routes. It is moderately to
severely irritating to the eyes, moderately to
mildly irritating to the respiratory tract and the
skin. Most of the formulations of diazinon require
the signal word "Warning" on the label.
In chronic toxicity tests, there were no gross
effects in rats fed 100 ppm in the diet for 2 years,
nor in dogs fed 4.3 - 5.2 mg/kg of body weight/day
for 43 weeks. In both rats and dogs, there was
cholinesterase inhibition at these dosage rates.
No malformations or adverse effects on reproduction
were seen in a 3-generation study on rats. In
monkeys, 5.0 mg/kg of body weight per day adminis-
tered for 106 weeks caused no effects other than
cholinesterase inhibition. Tolerances for residues
Nqntarget
Organisms
of diazinon have been established for many
crops, ranging from 0.01 - 60 ppm, 0.75 ppm
for most fruits and vegetables.
Diazinon is highly toxic to fishes, lower aquatic
organisms, birds, and soil insects; slightly
toxic to wild mammals; and relatively nontoxic
to soil organisms other than insects. There are
no data on its possible build-up in food chains.
Diazinon is highly toxic to honeybees and to
other beneficial insects (predators and para-
sites) .
164
-------
Environment : Diazinon is moderately persistent in the environ-
ment. Residual insecticidal effectiveness persists
for about 7 to 10 days on foliage; for 4 to 6 weeks
on indoor inert surfaces; and for 2 to 4 months
in soils. The half-life of diazinon residues in
the soil is about 4 to 6 weeks. Generally, less
than 10% of an applied rate persists in the soil
for more than 6 months, and residues decline com-
pletely in a single growing season. Diazinon may
dissipate from treated areas by volatilization.
Leaching from treated soils may also occur, based
on laboratory studies. Migration of diazinon
residues from treated areas in surface run-off in
water or on sediments is also possible. Diazinon
is degradable by biological organisms and by non-
biological factors. Studies in which the persis-
tence of diazinon in autoclaved and nonautoclaved
silt loam was compared at different temperatures,
moisture levels and pH levels indicate that non-
biological degradative mechanisms predominate.
The primary pathway of degradation of diazinon in
the soil is hydrolysis at the heterocyclic phos-
phate bond, followed by rupture of the aromatic
structure and eventual formation of C0~.
Evaluation : Most diazinon formulations are moderately toxic
and do not present peculiar hazards to persons
handling them if used in accordance with the
label directions. There are no indications of
other serious hazards to human health from the
proper use of diazinon as an insecticide.
Diazinon has a broad spectrum of biological
effectiveness. Its residues may migrate from
target sites by volatilization, leaching, or
surface run-off. However, since diazinon is not
highly persistent in the environment, terrestrial
and/or aquatic ecosystems away from target areas
are not likely to be adversely affected, except
if heavy rainfalls follow soon after foliar or
soil applications. Such effects, if they do
occur, are likely to be only transitory.
165
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 6. DISULFOTON
A. Product Description
Chemical Name: 0-0-Diethyl-S-[2-(ethylthio)-ethyl]phosphorodithioate
Trade Names: Bay 19639, Di-Syston, dithiodemeton, dithiosystox, Frumin Al,
Solvirex
Pesticide Class: Systemic insecticide; organophosphate
Properties: Liquid of low volatility; insoluble in water; highly toxic;
nonpersistent
B. Manufacturers
Name Plant Location Plant Capacity Estimated 1972 Production
Chemagro Kansas City, Missouri 7 million pounds 5 million pounds
(estimated)
C, Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Information on production and waste control technology for
disulfoton have been reported.—' The reaction chemistry is:
P,S, + 4C2H5OH + 2NaOH Toluene> 2 (C2H50)2P(S)SNa + H2S + 2H20
25 "Diethyl Salt" (DES)
PC13 + 3HOC2H4-S-C2H5 >3C1C2H4-S-C2H5 + P(OH)3
"Thio Alcohol" "Chloro Thio Alcohol" (CTA)
(C2H50)2P(S)SNa + C1C2H4-S-C2H5 »(C2H50)2P(S)-S-C2H4-S-C2H5 + NaCl
Disulfoton
A production and waste schematic is shown in Figure 17.
Caustic conditions (lime) remove some of the organophosphates
during a retention period of 36 hr. The pH is also adjusted and poly-
electrolyte flucculents added. The effluent is discharged into the Blue
River with probably no more than parts-per-million range of any one
166
-------
STEAM
WAT EH
NoOH
CONDENSER
ETHANOl-w-
Ided by Chenugro Corporation)
ORGANIC
TO BURIAL
WASTEWATEU TO
TREATMENT PLANT
Figure 17 - Production and Waste Schematic for Disulfotoni'
-------
pesticide. The solid wastes go to a landfill. The process filter cake is
decontaminated then buried. The solid formulation line is covered by a dust
collection system which has a baghouse backed with a venturi-type wet
scrubber. The formulation equipment is cleaned by a solvent flush (which
is used in the next batch), then by steam and water.
Chemagro produces disulfoton in a semicontinuous process in
dedicated equipment. The process raw materials are received by rail and
tank cars.
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
Disulfoton is formulated by Chemagro as follows: Di-syston
technical; 68% concentrate; 95% seed treatment; 6 Ib/gal. emulsifiable
concentrate; 10 and 15% granular; and two Di-syston®--Dasanit® combinations;
7.57o each insecticide granular, and 3 Ib Al/gal. of each. Chemagro ships
their technical product in 55-gal. drums, their 6 Ib/gal. emulsifiable
concentrate in 1-, 30-, and 55-gal. drums, the 70% deodorized form in
55-gal. drums, and the granular forms in 55-gal. steel drums, all primarily
by truck.
,®
E. Use Patterns
General
Action
Target Crops
Target Pests
Disulfoton is a systemic insecticide., i.e., it is absorbed
and translocated by treated plants. It controls primarily
sucking insects, especially aphids and plant-feeding mites.
Disulfoton active ingredient is an extremely toxic chemical.
Disulfoton was developed in the 1950's and has been in
commercial use for about 15 years. Agricultural uses
account for almost all of the estimated U.S. consumption
in 1972. Small quantities are used on ornamentals in the
home and garden market in the form of dry granules of very
low AI content*
Systemic insecticide; contact, stomach and inhalation
poison, moderately broad spectrum. Strong cholinesterase
inhibitor. Stimulates the nervous system.
Small grains, sorghum, corn, cotton, other field crops;
some vegetable, fruit and nut crops; ornamentals.
Aphids, mites, thrips, leafhoppers, corn rootworms, flea
beetles, several other insects.
168
-------
Application
Rates of :
Application
Frequency :
Time of :
Foliar applications to commercial crops by air or ground
equipment. Soil application to commerical crops by ground
equipment. Seed treatment (by commercial seed treaters
only). Application to ornamentals by low-concentration
granules, fertilizer mixtures, or root feeder cartridges.
Treatment of trees by injection or incorporation into the
soil under the tree from base to drip-line.
0.25-1.0 Ib Al/acre, up to 5.0 Ib Al/acre for some uses.
0.25-0.5 Ib AI/100 Ib of seed.
1-3 applications per season.
Soil application at planting time. Foliar applications
Application spring to mid-summer.
Estimated :
Distribution
U.S. Production
5
(All figures in million of pounds AI per year, 1972)
Imports Exports Domestic Consumption
None Negligible 5
Totals
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
•
Region
NE
SE
NC
SC
W
Agricultural
Negligible
0.3
1.0
2.4
1.2
Industrial, Government Home and
Commercial Agencies Garden
All
Areas
Totals
0.02
0.32
1.02
2.42
1.22
4.9
Negligible Negligible
0.1
5.00
The materials flow diagram is shown in Figure 18.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals : Several other systemic organic phosphate insecticides
are close chemical relatives of disulfoton and have a very
similar spectrum of insecticidal effectiveness, including
169
-------
•vl
O
Disulfoton Millions
1972 Estimated: Lbs. AI
- U.S. Production 5.0
- Imports None
- Exports Negl.
- U.S. Supply
5.0
Figure 18 - Materials Flow Diagram for Disulfoton
-------
phorate, and demeton and demeton-methyl and their several
analogs and horaologs. Insects controlled by disulfoton
are also controlled by a number of other systemic and
nonsystemic insecticides.
Systemic insecticides such as disulfoton can be made more
selective by the manner in which they are used. For
instance, disulfoton applied to the soil will control
sucking insects on plants, but will not destroy honeybees
or other beneficial insects. Disulfoton (and other
systemic insecticides that have similar properties) are
therefore useful in some integrated pest management
programs.
Nonchemical : Many of the insects controlled by disulfoton have naturally
occurring predators and parasites that may suppress them.
Biological control agents and integrated pest management
methods are being developed and employed on some of the
crops on which disulfoton is used.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian : Disulfoton is extremely toxic to laboratory animals by the
Toxicity oral and dermal routes, highly toxic by inhalation. It
is not irritating to eyes, nose, throat or skin. However,
only a few drops of disulfoton AI, or of the highly con-
centrated liquid formulations ingested by mouth, adsorbed
through the skin, or splashed in the eye could be fatal
to an adult human. Even smaller quantities may be fatal
to children. Toxicity studies on laboratory animals
indicate, and field experience confirms that granular
formulations are considerably less toxic via the dermal
and inhalation routes than the liquid forms of disulfoton.
All formulations containing more than 2% AI require
labeling as highly poisonous chemicals, including the
signal words "Danger - Poison" and skull and crossbones.
In chronic toxicity tests, the no-effect level (including
cholinesterase inhibition) in the diet was 2 ppm for rats,
1 ppm for dogs. Tolerances have been established for
residues of disulfoton for a number of crops, ranging
from 0.3 to 12.0 ppm, 0.75 ppm for most.
171
-------
Nontarget
Organisms
Environment
Evaluation
Disulfoton is highly toxic to fishes, lower aquatic
organisms, birds, wild mammals, and to soil fauna.
It is moderately toxic to other soil organisms.
There are no data on its possible bioaccumulation
or build-up in food chains. On theoretical grounds,
biomagnification is unlikely.
Disulfoton is highly toxic to honeybees and to
beneficial insects (predators and parasites) on
direct contact. Under field conditions, this
will occur only when disulfoton is sprayed on
plants at the higher rates of application, but
not from granular or soil applications.
Disulfoton is moderately persistent in the en-
vironment. Its half-life in the soil ranged
from 40 to 100 days. There is little likelihood
of carryover of toxic residues to the next season
following soil applications, except after appli-
cations late in the season. No data are available
on possible volatilization of disulfoton from
treated surfaces. Migration away from treated
areas by leaching and by surface run-off in water
or on solids is possible, but not likely to occur
under field conditions except when heavy rainfall
follow soon after application.
Disulfoton is degradable by biological organisms
and nonbiological factors, including alkaline
hydrolysis. Metabolites include disulfoton
sulfoxide and sulfone, and the sulfoxide and
sulfone of the corresponding oxygen analog. Smaller
amounts of diethyl phosphate, diethyl phosphorothioate
diethyl phosphorodithioate and inorganic phosphate
have also been identified as degradation products.
Disulfoton technical and all formulations (except
those containing less than 2% AI) are highly toxic
and present operator hazards inherent in products
of this order of toxicity. There are no indica-
tions of other serious hazards to human health from
the use of disulfoton in accordance with label
directions.
Due to its somewhat limited spectrum of biological
effectiveness and its systemic properties, disulfoton
can be used selectively, and as a supplement to
natural regulants of insect populations. Disulfoton
residues may be transported away from target sites
by surface run-off or leaching, but this is not
likely to occur under field conditions except if
heavy rainfalls follow soon after application. In
such circumstances, terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems
in the vicinity of target areas may be adversely
affected.
172
-------
CASE STUDY UK). 7. MALATHION
A. Product Description
Chemical Name; 0-0-Dimethylphosphorodithioate of diethyl mercaptosuccinate
Trade Names: Cuthion, Emmatos, Emmatos Extra, Fyfanon, Karbofos, Kop-Thion,
Kypfos, Malaspray, Malamar, MLT, Zithiol
Pesticide Class: Nonsystemic insecticide and acaricide; organophosphate
Properties: Liquid of low volatility; slightly soluble in water; low
toxicity; nonpersistent
B. Manufacturers
Estimated 1972
Name Plant Location Plant Capacity Production
American Cyanamid Warners, New Jersey 35 million Ib 24 million Ib
(estimated)
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Information on production methods and waste control technology
for malathion have been reported.!/ The reaction chemistry is:
S
!'-,S5 + 4MeOH >2(MeO)2PSH + H2S
x H ~ PH 5.5 n
(MeO)2PSH + HC-COOEt > (MeO)2PSCHCOOEt
HC-COOEt CH9COOEt
Dimethyl- Diethylmaleate
phosphoio- or fumarate
dithioic (DEM or DEF)
acid (DMTA)
A production and waste schematic is shown in Figure 19.
The only by-product is H2S, from which elemental sulfur is re-
covered in a Glaus process unit. Some toluene is lost but the emission
is not known. Wash water and liquid wastes (spills, etc.) go to a holding
pond from which, in 1971, they were barging 150-200 miles to sea. Equipment
173
-------
r2->5 *" Dithio ^
CH-aOH- •» A • i -fcfrHaO
Toluene- — •• Unit .
I Distillation Fil
\
Oieth/lmaleate — »• Mala
DMTA & DEF — •• Unit
_ u c _ To Clauss Sulfur
nser — *• njb ^ D n, .
• ^ Recovery Plant
i2P(S)SH
f i Ctl^nv Trt A««MA1.nJ
ter ~~*Cake ""*" Landfill
HoO NaOH ,-
* t t
-*• Stripper -•• Wash -* Stripper
1 i
Waste Wastes
Wnter
1
Barge
to Sea
• TIM ^Tecnnica|
•" Malathion
Figure 19 - Production and Waste Schematic for Malathioni/
-------
is cleaned only once or twice a year and waste is also barged to sea. The
only solid wastes are filter wastes. These are decontaminated with NaOH
and buried with lye in a landfill. Dust in the formulation area is col-
lected in a baghouse and recycled. The company tries to use the same con-
tainers (rail cars, trucks, etc.) over each time.
A batch process is used by American Cyanamid in their manufacture
of malathion. Production is in equipment used only for malathion and
other organophosphates. The raw materials for the process are received
by truck and rail.
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
A variety of malathion formulations are available; a malathion
ULV concentrate (9.8 lb/gal.), malathion 1000E emulsifiable (8.34 lb/gal.),
malathion 500 (4.18 lb/gal.), malathion 57% and 95% (5 lb/gal. and 9.7 lb/
gal., respectively). Less important products are pressurized formulations,
malathion 400 TF Special (4.58 lb/gal.-thermal fogging insecticide, and
507= and 25% water dispersable powders. Most formulations are packaged in
lined drums and shipped by rail and truck.
E. Use Patterns
General : Malathion was the first organic phosphate insecticide of
low mammalian toxicity. It has been in large scale commer-
cial use in the U.S. and in other countries for more than
20 years. Malathion controls a wide variety of economically
and hygienically important insect pests that affect man,
animals, plants and stored products. It is one of the
least toxic synthetic insecticides, rated only "slightly
toxic" to most nontarget species, except fishes. Malathion
can readily be formulated with common solvents or mixed
with other pesticides. It is rapidly degraded after
application, and relatively inexpensive. These favorable
properties make malathion useful for a great variety of
insect control purposes in crop and livestock protection,
public health, in and around homes, gardens, commercial
premises, and in quarantine programs involving treatment
of large areas, including populated areas.
Agricultural and home and garden uses of malathion each
accounted for about one-third of the estimated U.S. con-
sumption in 1972, the balance consisting of industrial,
commercial and governmental uses.
175
-------
Action
Target Crops :
Target Pests :
Application
Rates of :
Application
Frequency
Time of
Broad-spectrum insecticide; contact and stomach poison;
inhibits cholinesterase, stimulates the nervous system.
Forage crops and rangeland; fruit and vegetable crops;
cotton; ornamentals; many other corps; forest and shade
trees; mosquito control; control of insects affecting man,
animals and stored products.
Grasshoppers, aphids, thrips, scales, army worms, plant
bugs, mites, mosquitoes, flies, animal ectoparasites, and
many other insects. Resistance is a problem in some
areas, especially with aphids, mites, houseflies and
mosquitoes.
Foliar spray applications by ground or air equipment. Use
of the undiluted ULV concentrate is a very efficient
application technique, especially for large acreages.
Commercial premises, homes, stored products and other non-
crop targets are most often treated by spray equipment.
0.5-1.25 Ib Al/acre for most uses on crops and rangelands,
up to 4 Ib Al/acre for some uses on row crops.
0.5-0.75 Ib AI/100 gal. on fruit crops, up to 1.25 Ib AI/
100 gal. for some uses.
4.0-6.0% dusts or 0.6-1.25% AI sprays on animals.
1 to 8-10 applications per season or per year.
On crops, throughout the growing season. Other uses,
Application throughout the year as required.
Estimated
Distribution
U.S. Production
24
(All figures in millions of pounds AI per year, 1972).
Imports
0.2
Exports
8
Domestic Consumption
16.2
176
-------
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Industrial, Government Sub- Home and
Region Agricultural Commercial Agencies Totals Garden3./ Totals
NE
SE
NC
SC
NW
SW
Totals
0.2
1.5
1.0
0.6
0.7
1.0
5.0
0.8
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.2
0.2
4.0
0.1
1.2
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
2.2
1.1
3.5
2.5
1.8
1.0
1.3
11.2
5.0
16.2
a/ Geographic distribution not known.
A materials flow diagram for malathion is shown in Figure 20.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals
Nonchemica1
A number of other organic phosphate and carbamate in-
secticides, including some of moderate or low mammalian
toxicity (diazinon, fenthion, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl,
propoxur, and others) are available for control of many
of the insects against which malathion is used. None of
these other insecticides offer the same combination of
properties as malathion, i.e., broad insecticidal spectrum,
low acute and chronic toxicity to mammals, low toxicity to
most nontarget species, lack of persistence, suitability
for ULV (ultra-low volume) application, and low cost.
Biological control agents and integrated pest management
programs are being developed for some of the crops on
which malathion is used, especially cotton, fruit and
vegetable crops. Malathion is employed in some of these,
for instance, for control of diapausing boll weevils in
integrated cotton pest management. For many other insects
controlled by malathion, such as grasshoppers, animal
ectoparasites, fruitflies, mosquitoes and other insects
of public health importance, there are no effective non-
chemical control methods available.
177
-------
Malathion Millions
1972 Estimated: Lbs. AI
- U.S. Production 24.0
- Imports 0.2,
- Exports __JLJL_
- U.S. Supply 16.2
Figure 20 - Materials Flow Diagram for Malathion
-------
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian
Toxicity
Nontarget
Organisms
Malathion is slightly toxic to laboratory mammals
in acute toxicity tests via the oral and dermal
routes. In acute inhalation toxicity tests, a
lethal concentration was not achieved. Malathion
is not irritating to eyes, nose or throat. It
may be slightly irritating to the skin in sensi-
tive persons. No cumulative toxic effects have
been reported. Malathion formulations require
the signal word "Caution" on the label. In chronic
toxicity tests, the no-effect level in the diet of
rats was 100 ppm. Tolerances for malathion resi-
dues have been established for a large number of
crops and commodities, ranging from 1 to 135 ppm,
8 ppm on most crops.
In laboratory studies, it was found that the toxi-
city of malathion to experimental animals is
markedly increased if it is applied in conjunction
with certain other organic phosphate chemicals
that inhibit enzyme systems that detoxify
malathion in vivo. This type of potentiation
between certain organic phosphate insecticides
has been investigated extensively in numerous
laboratory studies. Tolerances for malathion
and other cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides
have been established with due consideration to
their potentiating effects, if any. To date,
there are no reports of adverse effects on human
health from this phenomenon.
Malathion is highly toxic to fishes; moderately
toxic to lower aquatic organisms, birds, and to
soil insects; relatively nontoxic to wild mammals
and soil organisms other than insects. In actual
field experience, fish kills from the use of
malathion have been reported only in a few instances,
involving small fish in shallow waters that were
directly treated. In several area-wide control
projects in which thousands or even millions of
acres were treated with malathion (for control of
Mediterranean fruitfly, forest and rangeland in-
sects, and cereal leaf beetles), there were no
confirmed reports of adverse effects on fish, wild
mammals or birds.
Malathion does not build-up in food chains. It is
highly toxic to honeybees and to beneficial insects
(predators and parasites) on direct contact, but
plant residues dissipate rapidly after application.
179
-------
Environment
Evaluation
Insecticidally effective malathion residues per-
sist for 1 to 3 days on most treated crops, for
2 to 4 weeks on protected indoor surfaces, and for
3 to 12 months in stored products. Soil residues
are not persistent and break down in less than
2 weeks.
Volatilization of malathion residues is possible,
but does not appear to be a major mode of dissi-
pation. Leaching from the soil is possible, based
on laboratory studies and the product's physical
and chemical properties. It is not likely to occur
to a significant extent under field conditions
because malathion is not recommended for applications
into the soil, and because it is degraded rapidly
in soil. For the same reasons, malathion is not
likely to migrate appreciably from target areas by
way of surface run-off in water or on solids.
It is readily degradable by microbial action,
sunlight and chemical hydrolysis. Metabolism
and degradation of malathion proceed through
several different chemical pathways, all of which
yield innocuous end products. One metabolite,
malaoxon, is considerably more toxic than the
parent compound, but it is transitory and is
quickly further metabolized and inactivated.
No hazards to human health are known to be
associated with the use of malathion as an
insecticide in accordance with label directions.
There are no indications of hazards to terrestrial
or aquatic ecosystems outside of target areas and
their vicinities from the use of malathion.
Malathion is one of the most benign pesticides
available today.
180
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 8. METHYL PARATHION
A. Product Description
Chemical Name: 0,0-Dimethyl 0-p-nitrophenyl phosphorothioate
Trade Names: Dalf, Folidol M, Metron, Nitrox 80, Partron M, Tekwaisa
Pesticide Class: Broad-spectrum nonsystemic insecticide; organophosphate
Properties: Low melting solid (m.p. 36.5°C), low solubility in water; very
toxic; nonpersistent
B. Manufacturers
Estimated 1972
Name Plant Location Plant Capacity Production
Monsanto Company Anniston, Alabama 50 million Ib 28 million Ib
Stauffer Chemical Mount Pleasant, 30 million Ib 16 million Ib-
Company Tennessee
Kerr-McGee Chemical Hamilton, Mississippi 9 million Ib 6 million Ib
Corporation!!' Los Angeles, California 3 million Ib 0.5 million Ib
Velsicol Chemical Bayport, Texas 10 million Ib 0.5 million Ib
Corporation^'
£/ Plant capacities are usually for methyl jilus ethyl parathion.
b/ Kerr-McGee increased the capacity of its Hamilton plant to 14.5 million
Ib/year in 1973 and planned a further increase to 17 million lb/year'
in late 1974. Production of both methyl and ethyl parathion at the
Los Angeles plant was terminated at the end of 1972.
c/ Velsicol has reportedly converted its methyl parathion facilities to,,/
another organophosphate since 1972. ~>
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Information on Monsanto's production methods and waste control
technology for methyl parathion have been reported.!.' The reaction chemistry
is:
181
-------
P2S5+ 4ROH - >2(RO)2
I
HS
(R0)7 PSH + Clj
(RO)2PC1 + HC1 + S
s
(RO)2P-0-
N02+ NaCl
Monsanto produces methyl panthion by a batch process in equip-
ment dedicated to methyl and ethyl paraLhion production. Two of the raw
materials are produced on site and the rest are received by rail.!/ A
production and waste schematic is shown in Figure 21.
Liquid wastes from Monsanto's production, including by-product
HCl-NaCl, go to biological treatment facilities and then into the Anniston
sewer system. By-product H2S is flared, sulfur and waste solvent are
burned. The only solid waste is sludge from the biological oxidation
system which is recycled and discharged at a slow rate into the sewer.
Spills are washed into the waste treatment system. Outside spills are
handled by Monsanto personnel and soda ash is used for decontamination.
Equipment is cleaned 1 to 2 times per year.—'
Stauffer's method of producing methyl parathion is believed to
be similar to Monsanto's, although an interview visit could not be
arranged.
Kerr-McGee declined to discuss their methyl parathion plant. The
Kerr-McGee plant at Hamilton does not produce either P2S5 or the nitrophenol;
they apparently purchase ?2S5 or P°ssibly (CH30)2P(S)Cl.
D. Formulation. Packaging, and Distribution
Methyl parathion is sold as the technical product and as several
formulations. Emulsifiable concentrates are by far the most important
product; wettable powders and dust are very minor. Methyl parathion is
often formulated as a combination with other insecticides, especially
toxaphene.
182
-------
ROH-*
SO2
t
Flare
H2S
t
SO2
Incinerator
Reactor
Dialkyl
Ester
CI2-
Chlorinator
•ChloridothJonate
NaOC6H4NO2-
Acetone
Parathion
Unit
1
NaCI-
Waste
Treatment
Plant
Partial
Recovery
Parathion
Na2CO3-
City
Sewer
Figure 21 - Production and Waste Schematic for Methyl Parathion (Monsanto)!'
183
-------
Monsanto has the following methyl parathion formulations: 2 lb/
gal., 4 lb/gal., 5 lb/gal., 7 lb/gal., and an 807« AI-107, xylene solution
(7.5 lb/gal.). Stauffer also produces a technical methyl parathion of
807« AI. Monsanto markets the technical product in 55-gal. lined drums that
are shipped mostly by truck (~ 10% of production is shipped by rail).
Monsanto formulations are packaged in 5- and 55-gal. drums.
E. Use Patterns
General
Action
Target Crops
Target Pests
Application
Rates of :
Application
Frequency :
Worldwide as well as in the U.S., methyl parathion is one
of the most widely used cotton insecticides. It has been
commercially available for about 25 years. Its volume of
use began to level off some years ago., but started on a
renewed upward trend recently as a result of the cancella-
tion of the DDT registrations, and because of increasing
use on soybeans. Methyl parathion is highly toxic to
humans and to most other nontarget organisms. It is less
stable and less toxic via the dermal route than its diethyl
homolog, parathion.
There were no significant nonagricultural uses of methyl
parathion in the U.S. in 1972.
Broad-spectrum insecticide; contact, stomach and inhalation
poison. Strong cholinesterase inhibitor. Stimulates the
nervous system.
Cotton; soybeans; alfalfa; some other field and forage
crops; some vegetable crops.
Cotton boll weevil, bollworm complex, alfalfa weevil;
aphids, mites, leafhoppers, fleahoppers, plant bugs,
beetles, and some other insects on crops; mosquito larvae.
Resistance of the bollworm complex, loopers, mites and
mosquitoes is a problem in some areas.
Foliar application by ground or air equipment, often in
combination with toxaphene or other insecticides.
0.25-1.0 lb Al/acre.
Cotton, 3-10 or more applications per season.
crops, 1-4 applications per season.
Other
184
-------
Late spring to the end of the growing season.
Time of
Application
Estimated : (All figures in millions of pounds AI per year, 1972)
Distribution
U.S. Production Imports
51.1 1.1
Exports
12.5
Domestic Consumption
39.7
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Region Agricultural
Industrial,
Commercial
Government
Agencies
Home and
Garden
Totals
NE
SE
NC
SC
NW
SW
Negligible
5.0
0.1
31.0
0.7
2.9
Totals
39.7
5.0
0.1
31.0
0.7
2.9
Negligible Negligible Negligible 39.7
A materials flow diagram for methyl parathion is shown in Figure 22.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals : A number of other insecticides, including azinphos-methy!
malathion, carbaryl, and others are effective against
the cotton, alfalfa, soybean and other field, forage
and vegetable insects controlled by methyl parathion, bu
most of these are more expensive per unit of insect con-
trol.
Nonchemical
Several nonchemical methods for control of cotton, alfal
and soybean insects are currently under development. In
tegrated insect management programs in which these metho
are combined with selective use of chemical insecticides
have been developed to the point where they are practice
commercially on an increasing acreage.
185
-------
oo
ON
Methyl Parathion Millions
1972 Estimated: Lbs. AI
- U.c:. Production jl.O
- Imports 1 • 1
- I x:xjrts
1.4
Net Export
12.'
By-Products
-08 Ib/lb A I.
Figure 22 - Materials Flow Diagram for Methyl Parathion
-------
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian : Methyl parathion is highly toxic to laboratory animals
Toxicity by oral and dermal routes. Since it has a very low vapor
pressure at ambient temperatures, vapor inhalation does
not present a significant hazard. This statement does
not apply to airborne particulates, such as dust or spray
particles. In agricultural operations, methyl parathion
is commonly applied by spray equipment as a liquid. There-
fore, precautions should be observed to avoid the inhala-
tion of spray mist. Methyl parathion is not irritating to
eyes or skin. It may be irritating to the respiratory tract.
There are no reports of skin sensitization. Methyl para-
thion is rapidly absorbed through the intact mammalian
skin. However, it is somewhat less toxic via the dermal
route than its diethyl homolog, parathion. Poisoning
through skin exposure is a frequent cause of pesticide
accidents in the U.S. Probably at least in part due to
this difference in dermal toxicity, methyl parathion has
not caused nearly as many accidents among pesticide
workers and bystanders as parathion, even though it has
been used in much larger quantities than parathion in
recent years.
Methyl parathion formulations require labelling as highly
toxic pesticides, including the signal words "Danger -
Poison" and skull and crossbones.
Continued exposure to sublethal doses of methyl parathion
could result in cumulative toxic effects through progres-
sive inhibition of cholinesterase.
No chronic toxicity studies on laboratory animals have
been conducted with methyl parathion. Its chronic toxicity
is believed to be similar to that of parathion. In a
30-day test on human volunteers, daily doses of 7, 7.5,
8 and 9 mg did not depress cholinesterase by more than 20%
of the pre-established control values. Tolerances for
residues of methyl parathion have been established for a
number of crops, ranging from 0.05 to 5.0 ppm, 1.0 ppm
for most crops.
Methyl parathion residues on treated plants dissipate more
rapidly than those of parathion. Treated fields should
not be re-entered by field workers within less than 48 hr
after application, depending upon the crop, rate of applica-
tion, weather conditions, and other factors.
187
-------
Npntarget
Organisms
Methyl parathion is moderately toxic to fishes, highly
toxic to lower aquatic organisms, birds, wild mammals
and to soil fauna. It is much less toxic to other soil
organisms. There are no data on its possible buildup
in food chains, but this is not likely to occur because
it is rapidly degraded in plants, animals, microorganisms
and water. Methyl parathion is highly toxic to honeybees
and to other beneficial insects by direct contact or by
contact with residues on plant surfaces soon after applica-
tion.
Environment
Evaluation
Methyl parathion is not persistent in the environment.
Residual insecticidal effectiveness persists for only
1 to 2 days on treated plants. Methyl parathion is not
recommended for any applications directly into the soil.
It is rapidly degraded in soil. Some quantities of methyl
parathion may dissipate from treated surfaces by volatiliza-
tion. Migration from treated areas by leaching or surface
run-off in water or on solids is possible based on laboratroy
studies, but is not likely to be of importance in the field
because methyl parathion degrades so rapidly. It is readily
degradable by biological organisms as well as by nonbiologi-
cal factors including sunlight. Several isomers and
metabolites of methyl parathion are more toxic than the
parent compound, but they are very transitory due to their
instability. Degradation mechanisms include hydrolysis,
oxidation, reduction, and dealkylation.
All methyl parathion formulations (except dry formulations
of less than 2% AI content) are highly toxic and present
serious hazards to operators and persons entering treated
areas soon after application without adequate protection.
Methyl parathion has a moderately broad spectrum of biologi-
cal effectiveness. It is not persistent in the environment.
There are no reports of gross adverse effects on terres-
trial and/or aquatic ecosystems away from target areas from
the use of methyl parathion as an insecticide in accordance
with label directions.
188
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 9. PARATHION (ETHYL PARATHION)
A. Product Description
Chemical Name: 0,0-Diethyl 0-p-nitrophenyl phosphorothioate
Trade Names; Alkron, Aileron, Bladan, Corothion, E-605, Ethyl Parathion,
Ethlon, Folidol E-605, Niron, Orthophos, Panthion, Paramar,
Parathene, Parawet, Phoskil, Rhodiatox, Soprathion, Stathion,
Thiophos
Pesticide Class: Broad-spectrum nonsystemic insecticide; organophosphate
Properties: Liquid of low volatility; insoluble in water; very toxic;
nonpersistent.
B. Manufacturers
Estimated 1972
Name Plant Location Plant Capacity^/ Production
Monsanto Company Anniston, Alabama 50 million Ib 10 million Ib
Stauffer Chemical Mt. Pleasant, 30 million Ib 3 million Ib
Company Tennessee
Kerr-McGee Chemical Los Angeles, California 3 million Ib ^ million Ib
Corporation Hamilton, Mississippi 9 million Ib None
aj Plant capacities are for methyl plus ethyl parathion. Stauffer dis-
continued parathion production in 1973.
Kerr-McGee discontinued parathion production at the Los Angeles
location at the end of 1972 and has produced only methyl parathion
at the Hamilton plant.
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Information on Monsanto's production method and waste control
technology for parathion has been reported.!.'
189
-------
HC1 + S
ONa
S
(C9Hr)9P-Cl +f/'~\>tl Acetone H /V~N\
(C2H50)2P-0-<'rjVN02 + NaCl
Monsanto produces parathion as it does methyl parathion; batch
process equipment dedicated to methyl parathion and parathion production,
and some of the raw products shipped by rail. The production and waste
schematic for methyl parathion, Figure 21, is applicable to parathion.
The comments on Stauffer's and Kerr-McGee's methyl parathion were appli-
cable to parathion, although neither of these companies are currently
parathion producers.
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
Monsanto packages technical parathion in 55-gal., lined drums
that are shipped mostly by truck. Parathion is formulated in 2-, 4-,
6-, and 8-lb/gal. emulsifiable concentrates packaged in < 5-, 5-, 15-,
30-, and 55-gal. drums. In addition, parathion is available in 1%, 2%,
20%, and 25% dusts, granules or wettable powders. The technical grade
parathion manufactured by Stauffer Chemicals has 98.5% active ingredient.
E. Use Patterns
General : Parathion was the first commercially successful organic
phosphate insecticide. It has been on the market for about
25 years. It has a very broad spectrum of effectiveness
and is currently registered in the U.S. for a large number
and variety of uses; the parathion section in the EPA
Compendium of Registered Pesticides is one of the most
voluminous of all and comprises 163 pages.
Parathion is one of the most toxic pesticides. Worldwide,
its use and misuse have caused more human deaths and ac-
cidents than any other pesticide. Parathion is also highly
toxic to fishes, birds, and other nontarget organisms. Some
countries have banned its use. In the U.S., its volume of
190
-------
Action
Target Crops :
Target Pests :
Application
Rates of
Application
use has continued at a high level, recently show-
ing a further upward trend. Parathion has no
significant uses in areas other than agriculture.
Insecticide, very broad spectrum; contact, stomach
and inhalation poison. Strongly inhibits cholin-
esterase. Stimulates the nervous system.
Cotton, vegetable crops, fruit and nut crops,
corn, tobacco; numerous other agricultural and
horticultural crops.
Aphids, plant bugs, leafhoppers, scales, mites;
many other foliar and soil insects. Resistance
of aphids, mites and some other insects fairly
widespread.
Foliar applications by ground or air equipment
(grain and forage crops often treated by air);
soil application by ground equipment.
0.25 - 1.0 lb. Al/acre for foliar treatments;
higher rates, up to 10 Ibs. Al/acre, for soil
applications and certain other uses.
Frequency
Time of
Application
Field crops, 1-3 applications per season.
Fruit and vegetable crops, tobacco, up to
8 applications per season.
Foliar applications throughout most of the grow-
ing season, soil applications at planting time.
Estimated
Distribution
: (All figures in millions of Ibs. Al/year, 1972)
U. S. Production
Imports
Exports
Domestic Consumption
14
Negl.
10
191
-------
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Industrial, Government Home and
Region Agricultural Commercial Agencies Garden Totals
NE 0.4 0.4
SE 1.4 1.4
NC 1.8 1.8
SC 3.5 3.5
W 2.9 2.9
Totals 10.0 Negligible Negligible Negligible 10.0
A materials flow diagram for parathion is shown in Figure 23.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals : Many other chemical insecticides (organic phosphates,
carbamates and chlorinated hydrocarbons) are available
for control of the pests against which parathion is
used. Most of these alternative insecticides are less
toxic to humans and to other nontarget species, but few,
if any of them can compete against parathion in regard to
cost effectivenesss.
Nonchemical : Biological control agents and integrated pest management
methods are being developed and employed against some of
the insects controlled by parathion, especially cotton and
fruit insects.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian : Parathion is extremely toxic to laboratory animals by the
Toxicity oral and dermal routes. No laboratory data are available
on its acute inhalation toxicity, but all indications are
that it is extremely toxic by this route also. Parathion
is not irritating to the eyes, respiratory tract or the
skin. Dermal toxicity studies indicate that about a teaspoon
of parathion left on the skin of a human (or a single drop
of parathion metabolite, paraoxon, in the eye of a rabbit)
could be fatal. Parathion is rapidly absorbed through the
intact mammalian skin. All parathion formulations above
27=. AI require labeling as highly poisonous pesticides,
including the signal words "Danger - Poison" and skull and
crossbones.
192
-------
2.4 y
Southwest I
Parathion Mil lions
1972 estimated: Lbs. AI
- U.S. Product ion 14.0
- Imports Nocj 1.
- Exports 4.0
- U.S. Supply
10.0
= Product ion Plant
Figure 23 - Materials Flow Diagram for Parathion, 1972
-------
Nontarget
Organisms
Environment
In chronic toxicity tests, the no-effect level (including
observation of cholinesterase inhibition) in the diet was
1 ppm for rats and dogs, 50 ppm for mice. In a subacute
study on man, 0.05 mg/kg of body weight per day (equivalent
to 1 ppm in the diet) was the no-effect level. Continued
exposure to sublethal dose levels of parathion will produce
progressive inhibition of cholinesterase. Tolerances for
parathion residues have been established for a large
number of crops, ranging from 0.1 to 5.0 ppm, 0.7 ppm for
most commodities.
Parathion residues on treated plants may be dangerous to
field workers such as fruit pickers, insect scouts, flag-
men directing aerial applications, and others. Treated
orchards, field crops and other plantings should not be
entered by unprotected persons within 48 hr after applica-
tion, depending upon crops, application rates, weather
conditions, and other factors.
Parathion is highly toxic to fishes, lower aquatic organisms,
birds, wild mammals, and to soil fauna. It is moderately
toxic to other soil organisms. Parathion is also highly
toxic to honeybees and to other beneficial insects (preda-
tors and parasites) by direct contact, as well as through
indirect contact with residues on plant surfaces.
A small amount of parathion accumulates in fish and mussels
when they are exposed to continued low concentrations in
water, but are eliminated when exposure ceases. There are
no data on its buildup in food chains.
Parathion is moderately persistent in the environment.
Residual insecticidal effectiveness persists for several
days, sometimes longer, on exposed plant surfaces, for
1 month or more on protected surfaces such as bark. Para-
thion residues in the soil are moderately persistent.
Soil degradation rates vary greatly, depending upon tem-
perature, moisture, pH and other conditions. Generally,
there is no carryover of residues to the next season.
Parathion may dissipate to some extent from treated areas
by volatilization. It may also migrate by way of leaching
or surface run-off in water or on solids. Parathion is
degradable biologically and by nonbiological factors in-
cluding sunlight. Its metabolism in vivo includes oxidation
194
-------
to paraoxon, a more toxic, but less stable, analog. Other
degradation products formed by hydrolysis and dealkyla-
tion include phosphoric and phosphorothioic acids and
nitrophenol, all less acutely toxic than the parent compound,
Evaluation : All parathion formulations (except granules of low AI
content) are extremely dangerous poisons. Labels of
parathion products set forth all warnings and precautionary
measures necessary for the protection of operators. How-
ever, these measures are so severe that they are often
disregarded, especially under hot and humid climatic con-
ditions where physical labor in "waterproof pants, coat,
hat, rubber boots or overshoes, safety goggles, mask or
respirator, and heavy duty natural rubber gloves" (quoted
from a product label) is uncomfortable or possibly stress-
ful. Thus, parathion has caused many illnesses among
operators, some of them fatal. In the United States, para-
thion has caused an even larger number of accidental
poisonings and deaths among persons not directly involved
in the pesticide application itself, especially young
children. Such accidents have resulted from careless
handling or storage of parathion products, application
equipment or containers, and from exposure to spills.
Children have become poisoned from playing with contami-
nated equipment, measuring cups, dirt, mudpies, etc., or
heavily contaminated vegetation or bare ground. In other
countries, spillage of liquid parathion on flour, stacks
of clothing or other commodities, and other mishaps with
the product have resulted in many deaths and illnesses.
Thus, parathion is a highly dangerous insecticide that
has great potential for harm to nontarget species, includ-
ing man.
195
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 10. TOXAPHENE
A. Product Description
Chemical Name: Mixed Isomers of Chlorinated Camphene (67-69% chlorine)
Trade Names: Clor Chem T-590, Phenacide, Phenatox, Strobane-T, Toxakil
Pesticide Class: Broad spectrum insecticide; Chlorinated hydrocarbon
Properties: Waxy solid, insoluble in water; moderately toxic; low per-
sistence compared to DDT
B. Manufacturers
Estimated 1972
Name Plant Location Plant Capacity Production
Hercules, Inc. Brunswick, Georgia 50-75 million Ib 50-75 million Ib
Tenneco Chemicals, Fords, New Jersey 125 million Ib 20 million Ib
Inc.
The production of toxaphene in 1972 is difficult to estimate. The
Tariff Commission reports that production of the aldrin-toxaphene group has
increased substantially since 1970 and was even higher in 1972 than it was
in 1966, as shown in Table XXXI. Among the seven components of the group,
productions of chlordane, dieldrin, endrin and heptachlor are believed to
have been fairly constant since 1966, and the major changes have been in
production of aldrin (which peaked in 1966), toxaphene and Strobane . In-
dividual estimates are:
Estimated Production (million Ib)
Pesticide 1966 1970
Aldrin 19 '9
Chlordane 20 20
Endrin 2 1
Dieldrin 1.5 0.6
Heptachlor 8 8
Strobane® 15
Toxaphene 65 50£'
Tariff Commission Total 130.5 88.6
a/ Includes Strobane-T®
196
-------
TABLE XXXI
PRODUCTION OF THE ALDRIN-TOXAPHENE GROUP. 1963-1972
Production Reported Toxaphene
(MM lb)-/ Producers
106. Oil/ Hercules
105.3 Hercules
c/
118.8- Hercules
130. & Hercules
120.2-/ Hercules, Sonford
116.0s-' Hercules
123.1- Hercules
1970 88.6 Hercules, Sonford, Tenneco
1971 116.3 Hercules, Sonford, Tenneco
1972 141.9 Hercules, Tenneco6./
a/ Source: SJJ.S. Tariff Commissigru\
b/ The aldrin-toxaphene group contains aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin,
endrin, heptachlor, and toxaphene. Before 1963, production
data for these products were included in the broad "chlorinated
hydrocarbon insecticide" category (along with DDT).
£/ Production data for Tenneco's polychlorinated terpene product,
Strobane® (a toxaphene-like insecticide first produced in
1964) is included from 1965 through 1969.
d/ Production data for 1969 were from the preliminary reports;
only the sales figures of 110.4 was given in the final re-
port.
e_/ Sonford's facilities at Port Neches, Texas, which had a small
toxaphene capacity, are now operated by Bison Chemical Com-
pany, but are not believed to be producing toxaphene.
Helena Chemical Company may produce toxaphene at Vicksburg,
Mississippi in 1974.
197
-------
But if aldrin production was 11-13 million pounds in 1972, and
that of the other components totaled about 32 million pounds, then toxaphene
production must have reached the unprecedented total of about 95 million
pounds. While one industry source has indicated that this estimate is
reasonable, another has stated that it is implausibly high, and that 75
million pounds would be a maximum. If the higher figure is accurate, the
75 million pounds figure represents a good 5-year average.
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Information on production methods and waste control technology
for toxaphene have been reported..!/ The reaction chemistry is:
uv Orcat HC1
o-Pinene Camphene Toxaphene (mixed isomers
and related compounds
67-69% Cl)
A production and waste schematic for Hercules' process is shown
in Figure 24.
Hercules receives the raw products for its toxaphene production
by tank cars, truck, and rail.
The effluent from the camphene production step goes to the main
plant waste stream which is discharged into a tidal creek. Toxaphene produc-
tion area is diked. The liquid waters go to large holding pond and waste
treatment system. Process vents are water, caustic, or lye-scrubbed before
venting with scrubber water going to the holding pond. Effluent from
treatment plant goes to a creek, then to the ocean. Baghouses are used in
the dust concentrate unit and the dust is recycled. Tank cars, whether
company owned or rented, are dedicated. They are cleaned yearly with wash-
ings going to the toxaphene recycle sytem and aqueous wastes through the
waste treatment system.
198
-------
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
Most toxaphene is shipped in 90% toxaphene concentrate-10% xylene
form in tanks (by rail and truck), in 55 gal. drums, and in 50 Ib bags
(palletized). A small amount of the technical product is packaged in 250
gal. galvanized drums and exported via the East Coast. The toxaphene is
formulated as follows: 10% and 15% granular, 20% dust, and 6 Ib/gal. and
8 Ib/gal. emulsifiable concentrates. Other formulations are low-volume
concentrates, wettable powders, solutions, combination formulations with
other insecticides. These formulations are available under different brand
names, and in varying concentrations of AI.
E. Use Patterns
General
Action
Target Crops
Target Pests
Toxaphene is a heavily chlorinated camphene. Its exact
chemical structure is not known. It has been in com-
mercial use for about 25 years. At least during the last
10 years, it has been used in larger quantities in the U.S.
than any other insecticide. Its most important use is in
the control of cotton insects, usually in combination with
DDT (up to 1973), methyl parathion, or other insecticides.
Toxaphene can easily be formulated or mixed with other
insecticides. It appears to act as a solubilizer for in-
secticides that have low solubility by themselves. Some
combinations of toxaphene with other insecticides are re-
ported to have synergistic properties.
Toxaphene is moderately toxic to mammals, not as persistent
as most other chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides, and quite
inexpensive. Its level of use is still on the rise, due at
least in part to the phasing out of DDT and increased toxaphene
uses on cotton, soybeans, and other field crops. Nonfarm
uses of toxaphene are very small.
Broad-spectrum insecticide; contact and stomach poison.
Stimulates the central nervous system.
Cotton; livestock; small grains; soybeans; corn; many other
field, vegetable, fruit and nut crops, ornamentals.
Cotton insects, numerous other chewing, sucking and biting
insects affecting above target crops or livestock. Re-
sistance of some target pests is a problem in some areas;
combinations with other insecticides widely used to overcome
it. Some nontarget species (fish) in areas of heavy use of
toxaphene have also developed resistance.
199
-------
NS
O
O
Souther
Pine St
Chi
Soh
H2O— *-
Lime — »
NaOH—*.
Lime-
Stone
Surface
Waters *"
n ___
umps ^ 1 % Main Plant
1 Waste Stream
Rpnrtnr — Wn-itril. J
Camphene
1
or me »• .
:h|0rinator| ^Toxaphene_J R|ter |_^
1 ^nliifinn 1 1
* f 1 ^
r-HCl GasJ ' Cake
Absorber
*
Scrubbers
(2)
*
Neutralizer
f Recovered
Primary
Waste
Treatment
Plant
Muriatic Acid f
^ To Solid
Waste
Discharge to
Tidal Creek
Mixed
Xylenes
4 Stripper -^Toxaphene —^-Solution
^•HHMMBV
1
Dust
Formulation
i
- Baghouse Dust
Collector
Atmosphere
Figure 24 - Production and Waste Schematic for Toxaphene (Hercules)—
II
-------
Application
Most important use is foliar application to crops by air or
ground equipment, often in combination with other insecticides,
especially DDT (up to 1973) and/or methyl parathion. Live-
stock treated in dip vats or by sprays ; some use of oil solu-
tions in backrubbers and other self-application devices.
1.0-3.0 Ib Al/acre on most crops; 1.0-1.25 Ib AI/100 gal. of
Rates of
Application spray; 0.25-0.6% AI in livestock dips or sprays; 5.0-8.0%
AI in livestock backrubbers; 5.0% dusts for use on livestock.
Frequency : On crops, 1-12 applications per season. On livestock, 1-4
applications per year.
Time of : On crops, throughout the vegetation season. On livestock,
Application year around depending on pest problem.
Estimated :
Distribution
(All figures in millions of pounds AI per year, 1972):
U.S. Production
Imports
None
Exports
18
Domestic Consumption
58
a/ See pp. 196-198.
Region
Totals
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Industrial, Government Home and
Agricultural Commercial Agencies Garden
57.0
1.0
Small-/
Small-
a/
Totals
NE
SE
NC
SC
W
Negl.
20.0
1.0
31.5
4.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
20.2
1.2
31.7
4.7
58.0
a/ Too small to break out, included in totals.
A materials flow diagram based on these estimates for toxaphene
is shown in Figure 25.
201
-------
O
NJ
Toxaphenc Millions
1912 Estimated: Lbs. AI
- U.S. Production 76.0
- Imports None
- Exports 13.0
- U.S. Supply 58.0
7* = Production Plant
Figure 25 - Materials Flow Diagram for Toxaphene, 1972
-------
F. Alternatives
Chemicals
Nonchemical
Against insects on farm crops: There are many
other chemical insecticides that control some
or most of the insects controlled by toxaphene.
However, no other insecticide offers the same
combination of broad insecticidal effectiveness,
moderate mammalian toxicity and environmental
persistence, ease of formulation and mixing, and
low cost.
Against livestock insects, a number of other
chemical insecticides are available.
Several nonchemical methods for control of cotton
and other insects are currently under development,
including the use of bacterial and viral agents,
and of insect attractants. Combination of these
methods with the use of chemical insecticides only
as needed in integrated pest management programs
will reduce the quantities of toxaphene and/or
other insecticides required for prevention of
yield loss.
No specific, effective nonchemical methods are
available for control of the livestock pests con-
trolled by insecticides, such as lice, ticks,
scabies, and mange. Good sanitation and husbandry
practices help, but are often not sufficient by
themselves.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian
Toxicity
In acute toxicity tests, toxaphene is moderately
toxic to laboratory animals by the oral, dermal
and inhalation routes. Toxaphene active ingredient
by itself is not. irritating to eyes, skin or the
respiratory tract, but formulation ingredients
may be irritating. Toxaphene formulations carry
the signal word "Warning" on the label.
In chronic toxicity tests, the following no-effect
levels were found: 25 ppm for the rat; 20 ppm for
the dog; 0.7 mg/kg of body weight per day for the
monkey. Tolerances for residues of toxaphene have
been established for a large number of crops, rang-
ing from 2 to 7 ppm, 7 ppm on most commodities.
203
-------
Nontarget
Organisms
Environment
Evaluation
Toxaphene is extremely toxic to fishes, and
toxic to lower aquatic organisms, birds, and
wild mammals. Its toxicity to soil organisms
is not known. Toxaphene bioaccumulates and
builds up in food chains, but not nearly to the
same extent as the highly persistent chlorinated
hydrocarbon insecticides.
Toxaphene is moderately toxic to honeybees and
to beneficial insects (predators and parasites).
Toxaphene is not recommended for application
directly into the soil. On treated plants, its
residual insecticidal effectiveness persists for
about 5 to 14 days. Its rate of volatilization
from the surface of plants or soil is substantial;
volatilization is believed to be the major mechanism
of dissipation of toxaphene. If toxaphene pene-
trates into soil profiles, it becomes tightly bound
to soil particles highly resistant to leaching.
Run-off from treated plants or from the soil sur-
face may be substantial. Toxaphene residues that
have become adsorbed on soil particles may be
transported by way of soil erosion and sediment
transport.
Toxaphene is believed to be degradable by biolo-
gical organisms as well as by nonbiological factors,
but the rates and pathways are not known in detail.
In the soil, toxaphene is very persistent, but it
does not become incorporated into the soil in its
normal use. Monitoring studies do not indicate
any build-up of toxaphene in the environment,
even though the product has been used in very large
volumes in the United States for many years. In
the National Soils Monitoring Program, toxaphene
residues were found at only 4.. 2% of 1729 sites
sampled. The range of toxaphene residues detected
was 0.1 to 11.72 ppm, the mean level 0.07 ppm.
There is no evidence that serious hazards to human
health are associated with the use of toxaphene
as an insecticide in accordance with label direct-
ions. Toxaphene is severely toxic to aquatic eco-
systems, especially to fishes. Toxaphene is also
toxic to terrestrial ecosystems, but these effects
are much less ubiquitous and widespread than those
caused by the more persistent chlorinated hydro-
carbon pesticides.
204
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 11. ALACHLOR
A. Product Description
Chemical Name; 2-Chloro-2',6'-diethy1-N-(methoxymethyl)acetanilide
Trade Names: Lasso, CP 50144, Lazo
Pesticide Class: Selective herbicide; Acetanilide
Properties: Low melting (40°C) solid; solubility in water, 140 ppm;
moderately low toxicity; skin irritant; nonpersistent
B. Manufacturers
Name
Plant Location
Estimated 1972
Plant Capacity Production
Monsanto Company Muscatine, Iowa 30 million Ib 24 million Ib
C. Production Methods and Waste Technology
Information on production and waste control technology for alachlor
have been reported.!' The reaction chemistry is:
H2CO
Solvent
Diethylaniline
ClCHoCOCl
C1CH
C2H5.
CH2C1
C2H5
NH-
CHoOH
CH3OCH2
U
Vs"
o
Alachlor
205
-------
A production and waste schematic is shown in Figure 26.
The formulation equipment is not dedicated. The packaging area
has automatic bagging and filling equipment."The production and warehouse
areas are not diked. There is no problem with leakage. The used drums
go to a landfill on site and wipe cloths are probably burned.
Formulation of the technical product is on site.
Process water is discharged into the Mississippi River after
mechanical treatment only. The production equipment requires clean-up only
two to three times per year.
Monsanto uses a batch process in their production of alachlor.
The raw materials are received by truck, tank cars, and rail.
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
About 50-60% of the production is formulated into a 43% (4 lb/
gal.) emulsifiable concentrate (Lasso® EC) packaged in 5 gal. lined cans
shipped primarily by truck. The remaining 35-45% of production goes to
Lasso® log (10% alachlor granular) packaged in 5 lb bags, again shipped
mostly by truck and to a lesser degree, by rail.
E. Use Patterns
General : Alachlor has been on the market only since 1969, but its
volume has increased very rapidly due to its remarkable
spectrum of selectivity that permits its use on three of
the most important U.S. field crops, i.e., corn, soybeans
and peanuts. Nonagricultural uses are negligible or nil.
Further increase in volume of use is anticipated.
Action : Selective, soil-applied, preplant or pre-emergence herbi-
cide for control of annual grass weeds and some broadleaf
weeds. Absorbed by germinating plant shoots. Mode of
action not known.
Target Crops : Corn, soybeans, peanuts.
Target Weeds : Most annual grass weeds and certain broadleaves. Efficacy
fair on yellow nutsedge, fair to poor on wild cane.
Application : Pre-plant incorporated, pre-emergence, or very early post-
emergence .
206
-------
(H2CO)2-
Depolymerizer
CICH2COCI CH3OH NH3
ho
o
DBA
Aromatic
Solvent
Discharge
to River
Figure 26 - Production and Waste Schematic for Alachlor-
-------
Rates of :
Application
Used alone, or in combination with certain other herbicides,
broadcast or banded. Applied by ground or air equipment.
2-4 Ib Al/acre for broadcast treatment.
Frequency : Once per season.
: Spring, at planting time of target crops.
Time of
Application
Estimated : (All figures in millions of pounds Al/year, 1972),
Distribution
U.S. Production Imports Exports
24.0 None 3.0
Domestic Consumption
21.0
Region
Totals
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Agricultural
NE
SE
NC
SC
W
1.5
0.8
17.4
0.8
0.5
21.0
Industrial,
Commercial
Government Home and
Agencies Garden Totals
1.5
0.8
17.4
0.8
0.5
21.0
A materials flow diagram for alachlor is shown in Figure 27.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals
Nonchemical
Propachlor (Ramrod), butylate (Sutan), chloramben (Amiben);
trifluralin (TrefIan); vernolate (Vernam); others.
Mechanical removal of weeds by cultivation, hoeing or pull-
ing weeds by land; changing crop rotation, planting dates,
etc. None of these measures are entirely satisfactory on
grass weeds. All of them would be more expensive than
herbicides, except in rather weed-free fields.
208
-------
, j»""-\
"j \
Figure 27 - Materials Flow Diagram for Alachlor, 1972
-------
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian
Toxicity
Nontarget
Organisms
Environment
Evaluation
The mammalian toxicity of alachlor is low. It is
slightly toxic to laboratory animals by the oral
and dermal routes, relatively non-toxic by inhala-
tion. However, the chemical is severely irritating
to eyes, nose, throat and skin, and may cause
allergic skin reactions. The 4 Ibs./gal. EC
formulation therefore carries the signal word
"Danger" on the label. No data on the chronic
toxicity (2-year feeding tests) are available as
yet. No cumulative toxic effects have been reported.
Residue tolerances ranging from 0.2-0.75 ppm have
been established.
Alachlor is relatively non-toxic to fishes and birds.
Its toxicity to lower aquatic organisms and soil
organisms is not known. Based on the results of
studies on laboratory mammals, it is probably rela-
tively non-toxic to wild mammals under field use
conditions. Data on possible build-up in food
chains are not available.
Alachlor is adsorbed by soil colloids. It is de-
graded in the soil by biological as well as by
chemical processes. Alachlor is not persistent, it
is usually dissipated within 2-3 months after appli-
cation. Carry-over of residues to the next season
has not been a problem. Surfaces-exposed residues
may be subject to volatilization. Alachlor has a
low propensity for leaching, but may be transported
away from treated fields by surface runoff or with
solids through soil erosion.
Alachlor may be severely irritating to operators
handling it. It may produce allergic skin reactions.
No other serious human health hcizards have been
attributed to its use to this date. Data on possible
effects on nontarget organisms or build-up in food
chains are incomplete at this time.
210
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 12 ATRAZINE
A. Product Description
Chemical Name: 2-Chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine
Trade Names: G-30027, AAtram, AAtrex, Atranex, Fenamine, Fenatrol,
Gesaprim, Primatol A
Pesticide Class: Selective herbicide; Triazine
Properties: Solid; nearly insoluble in water; low toxicity; nonpersistent
B. Manufacturers
Name
Ciba-Geigy Corp.
Plant Location
Plant Capacity Estimated 1972
(mm Ib/yr) Production
St. Gabriel, Louisiana 200 million Ib 95 million Ib
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Information on production method and waste control technology
for atrazine have been reported. The reaction chemistry is:
Cl
3HCN + 3C12'
Cl
C H NH
2 5 2
Solvent
Cyanuric
chloride
Cl
(CH3)2CHNH2
Cl
Cl
5HC1 or
RNH3C1
nr v*
JLS-A
H HN^^"N/V
25
Atrazine
A production and waste schematic for atrazine is shown in Figure 28.
211
-------
NS
G
Solvent
C2H5NH2_, | ,_(CH3)2CHNH2 ™«s
CI2-
HCN-
C3N3CI3-
NaOH-
HCI
1
Scrubber
and Filter
I
Deep We 11
Disposal
1
Amination
Unit
Solvent^
Recovery
L
T
Filtrate
*
Atrazine
Formulation
L
(Alternate)
Air Filters
and Scrubbers
Liquid
Wastes
Discharge
to River
Packaging
I
Product
Vent
Figure 28 - Production and Waste Schematic for Atrazine—
I/
-------
There is 1 Ib. effluent to 1 Ib. atrazine produced--mostly NaCl.
Liquid wastes from cyanuric chloride production go to deep well disposal
(after pH adjustment and filtration). The liquid wastes go to the river.
The sanitary wastes are chlorinated and then sent to the river. The
solid wastes (bag wrappers, car lining materials, etc.) are disposed of
by commercial operators in landfills not located at the plant site. The
formulation and packaging areas are controlled by baghouses and wet
scrubbers and atmospheric monitors are used. There is no leakage problem.
Packaging material is burned. Atrazine is manufactured by a continuous
process in equipment used mostly for atrazine, but which can also be used
for some other triazines.
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
Formulations are 8070 wettable powder packaged in 5 Ib. multi-
walled bags and a 4 Ib./gal. flowable concentrate available in 1- and
5-gallon jugs. Both are shipped bv rail. Atrazine is also formulated
in combination with several other Herbicides.
E. Use Patterns
General
Action
Target Crops
Target Weeds
Atrazine leads all other herbicides in the U.S. in
volume of use. It has an unusually large margin
of selectivity for corn, this country's leading
field crop. Several other triazine herbicides have
been developed for the same use patterns as atrazine,
but the volume of atrazine exceeds that of all other
triazine herbicides combined by a wide margin.
Herbicide for the control of annual broadleaf and
grass weeds, may be applied before or after emergence
of weeds (and crops). Acts mainly through root absorp-
tion. Inhibits photosynthesis, may have additional
effects. Selectivity is a function of the rate of
application.
Major: Corn, sorghum, sugarcane.
Minor: Pineapples, macademia orchards, turf
grasses, re-forestation; some non-selective uses.
Many annual broadleaf and grass weeds. Efficacy
fair on giant foxtail and yellow nutsedge, poor
on fall panicum, wild cane.
213
-------
Application
Rates of
Application
Frequency
Time of
Application
Estimated
Distribution
U.S. Production
95
Preplant, pre-emergence, or postemergence.
Used alone, with crop oil in postemergence
application, or in combinations with certain
other herbicides, broadcast or banded.
Applied by ground or air equipment.
2-4 Lbs. Al/acre on field crops;
1.2 Lbs. Al/acre for grasses grown for seed
production;
up to 6.4 Ibs Al/acre for use on pineapples;
10-40 Ibs. Al/acre for nonselective uses on
noncropland areas.
Usually one, rar-1/ -wo, applications per season.
Spring, around planting time of target crops.
(All figures in millions of Ibs. Al/year, 1972)
Imports
Negl.
Export Domestic Consumption
20 75
Totals
Domestic Use by Category and Geographic Region
Region
NE
SE
NC
SC
W
Agricultural
2.0
5.0
56.5
7.0
1.5
Industrial/ Gov't Home &
Commercial Agencies^ Garden
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
Totals
2.5
5.5
57.3
7.7
2.0
72.0
1.7
0.3
1.0
75.0
* Too small to break out, apportioned and included in total distribution.
A materials flow diagram for atrazine is shown in Figure 29.
214
-------
v;
to
I-1
Ln
«sr c^m*110" \
/LiTr^-Ai A r»»v>
Atrazine Millions
1972 Estimated: Lbs. AI
- U.S. Production 95.0
- Imports Negl.
- Exports 20.0
- U.S. Supply
A '\
L t, >>
Figure 29 - Materials Flow Diagram for Atrazine, 1972
-------
F. Alternatives
Chemicals
Nonchemical
Cyanazine (Bladex); cyprazine (Outfox); simazine
(Princep); alachlor (Lasso); propachlor (Ramrod);
butylate (Sutan); 2,4-D; dicamba; others.
Mechanical removal of weeds by tillage and culti-
vation, hoeing or pulling by hand; changing crop
rotation, planting dates, etc. All of these mea-
sures vould be much less efficient and effective,
and considerably more expensive than herbicides.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian
Toxicity
Nontarget
Organisms
In acute toxicity tests, atrazine was slightly
toxic to laboratory mammals by the oral or dermal
route or by inhalation. The 80% wettable powder
formulation requires the signal word "Caution" on
the label. In 2-year chronic toxicity tests, the
no-effect level in the diet of rats was 100 ppm.
Tolerances for residues of atrazine have been estab-
lished for a number of crops, ranging from 0.25-
15.0 ppm, 0.25 ppm for most commodities; 0.02 ppm
in eggs, milk, meat fat and meat by-products of
cattle, goats, hogs, horses, poultry and sheep.
Atrazine is relatively nontoxic to birds, wild mammals,
and soil organisms, slightly toxic to fish, and moderately
toxic to lower aquatic organisms. No data are available
on its possible buildup in food chains. In laboratory
tests^' atrazine was nontoxic to insects by itself, but
it substantially increased the toxicLty of 12 different
insecticides to Drosophila fruit flies, and of a smaller
number of insecticides to two other insect species.
Environment
Atrazine is quite stable and may persist in the soil
in sufficient concentration to cause injury to sus-
ceptible plants such as small grains, soybeans or
alfalfa planted the following season. It is subject
to degradation by microbial action as well as by non-
biological factors, including photodecomposition. In
the soil, it is reversibly adsorbed on soil particles.
Desorption appears to occur readily. Atrazine may
216
-------
Environment
continued
Evaluation
dissipate from treated areas by volatilization, but
this does not take place to a significant extent
under normal field conditions. However, the rate of
leaching or surface run-off in water or on solids may
be substantial, especially if heavy rainfalls follow
soon (1-2 weeks) after application.
In the National Soils Monitoring Program, atrazine
residues in the soil were found in 14% of 199 samples
that were analyzed for atrazine residues selected be-
cause of their use histories.
No serious hazards to human health have been attribu-
ted to the use of atrazine as a herbicide to this
date, even though the product has been used in very
large volume in the U.S. for about 15 years.
Based on presently available information, the use
of atrazine in accordance with label directions
appears to pose little, if any hazard to terrestrial
ecosystems outside the target area. Data on possible
effects on lower aquatic organisms or buildup in
food chains are inadequate to determine whether or
not there may be hazards to aquatic ecosystems. The
reported synergism of insecticide toxicity by atrazine
underscores the need for more information in this re-
gard, especially if the large volume of use and the
persistence of atrazine are considered.
217
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 13. BROMACIL
A. Product Description
Chemical Name; 5-Bromo-3-sec-butyl-6-methyluracil
Trade Names: Hyvar X, Hyvar X-L
Pesticide Class; Herbicide - weed and brush killer; uracil herbicide
Properties; Crystalline solid melting at 158-159°C; water solubility, 815
ppm at 25°C; moderately soluble in acetone, strong aqueous
bases, and ethyl alcohol; sparingly in hydrocarbons
B. Manufacturers
Estimated 1972
Name Plant Location Plant Capacity Production
E. I. du Pont de La Porte, Texas Est. 20 million 4 million Ib
Nemours & Co., Inc. lb/yr uracils
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Bromacil is a relatively new herbicide (still under patent) whose
use is growing; the duPont company declined to reveal details about its
production. The reaction chemistry is believed to be approximately as fol-
lows:
HXTTjf i rTlf^l i MO \ /"* U MTJf^AMTJ i ^Hfl
qNH« + C.OCJ.2 + NHo 7 C./H.9NHCjUNH.2 + ittUi.
sec-butylamine phosgene ammonia sec-butylurea
C,H9NHCONH2 + CH3COCH2C02CH3 ^ sec-C,Hn ,9
^\ M-rx
, . . . ^ f 1 I + H20 + C2H5OH
sec-butylurea ethyl acetoacetate J M ^ J
' ^^^*v ^^\.
g 3 ethanol
3-sec-butyl-6-methyluracil
218
-------
sec-C4H9
PH 5.5
0 'J -CH3
3-sec_-Butyl-6-methyluracil
A tentative production and waste control schematic is shown in Figure 30.
The major portion of raw materials were said to be shipped to La Porte from
the East Coast (primarily in tank cars), but some were obtained locally.
No solid wastes are generated and no significant quantities of chemicals are
recycled. Liquid wastes are disposed of by either biological treatment
(followed by discharge), incineration, or deep sea dumping.
Terbacil is probably made in the same equipment.
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
Bromacil is primarily a nonselective, nonagricultural herbicide
and is most used by itself or is tank-mixed with other herbicides. Most
of the technical bromacil is formulated at La Porte. DuPont formulates
bromacil in two forms: an 80%WP and 2 Ib bromacil per gallon (as lithium
salt). The 80% WP is packaged in 50-Ib fiber drums and 4-lb bags.
Bromacil liquid (2 Ib/gal) is available in 1-, 5-, and 30-gal. containers.
Bromacil is also formulated as wettable powders in combination with diuron.
Bromacil is sold in practically all parts of the United States,
almost exclusively under the DuPont label. Only a small amount, much less
than 10%, is used in formulations under other labels. Exports are estimated
in the range of 0.5 to 1 million pounds per year.
E. Use Patterns
General : Bromacil belongs to a group of uracil chemicals whose herbi-
cidal potential has been developed during the last 10 years.
Most uracils in this group (including bromacil) are highly
effective, broad-spectrum herbicides. Bromacil has been in
commercial use since the mid-19601s, and its use volume is
still on the increase. Its principal use is in the field
of industrial and commercial vegetation control; agricultural
uses are relatively minor.
219
-------
Sec - Butylamine— W
hi f^i 1 1 ^b
Sec-
Ethyl ^
Acetoacetate
K 1 f"M 1 ^^
INaUn ^
Urea Unit
1
Purification
J
^ Mnf~l
C4H9NHCONH2
1
Uracil Unit
1
Purification
Aqueous
^* Oiyonic
Waste
Na Salt of
3- Butyl, 6- Methyl Uracil
1
.. o^ Neutralization K. c^\
HoSOyl — ^ ^ Nn'\5;''J »—
••i-^a, ~^ Separation
Stream
1
• Bromacil
Filtration
Biological
Treatment
[__^. Disposal
at Sea
NaBr To Br2
Bromacil
Figure 30 - Production and Waste Schematic for Bromacil
220
-------
Action
Target Crops :
Target Weeds :
Application :
Rates of
Application:
Frequency
Time of
Broad-spectrum, soil-applied herbicide, selective at lower
rates. Inhibits photosynthesis.
Noncropland for weed and brush control. Pineapple, citrus
(selective use).
Annual grass and broadleaf weeds at lower rates; kills all
vegetation, including deep-rooted perennial weeds, grasses
(including johnsongrass) and brush at higher rates.
Pineapple, broadcast at planting time or directed interline
spray to established plantings; citrus, band or broadcast
under and between trees.
On noncropland, broadcast or spot treatment.
Always applied by ground equipment.
1.6-4.8 Ib Al/acre on pineapple;
3.2-6.4 Ib Al/acre on citrus.
For general vegetation control, 5-24 Ib Al/acre.
1-2 applications per crop on pineapple; 1 per year on citrus;
one or more applications per year for general vegetation con-
trol.
Application: Variable, throughout vegetation season.
Estimated :
Distribution
U.S. Production
4.0
(All figures in millions of Ib Al/year, 1972)
Imports
None
Exports
1.0
Domestic Consumption
3.0
221
-------
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Industr.
Region Agricultural Comm.
NE
SE
NC
sc
NW
SW
Totals
Small
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.2
2.3
Subtotals
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.6
2.7
aj Too small to break out by regions.
Government
Agencies
Home and
Garden
Totals
0.3-
None
3.0
A materials flow diagram for bromacil is shown in Figure 31.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals
Nonchemical
For selective uses: diuron; other herbicides. For non-
selective uses; diuron; simazine; chlorates-borates; TCA;
many other herbicides and herbicide combinations.
In pineapple and citrus plantings (the only crops for which
bromacil is currently registered for selective weed control),
mechanical removal of weeds would be possible in most in-
stances, although probably at greater expense and inconve-
nience than by use of herbicides.
Control of unwanted vegetation on industrial and commercial
premises, along railroads, etc. is not feasible without the
use of chemicals. Inorganic chemicals were used for these
purposes (and are still in use today) until more effective
organic herbicides were developed after World War II.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian : In acute toxicity tests, bromacil was relatively nontoxic
Toxicity to laboratory animals via the oral and dermal routes. It
may be moderately irritating to eyes, nose, throat and skin,
but there are no reports of induction or skin sensitization.
The signal word "Caution" is required for the labeling of
222
-------
CO
to
••—i..r~
Government Agencies
Bromacil Millions
1972 Estimated: Lbs. AI
- U.S. Production 4.0
- Imports None
- Exports 1.0
- U.S. Use 3.0
Figure 31 - Materials Flow Diagram for Bromacil, 1972
-------
Nontarget
Organisms
Environment
bromacil formulations. In 2-year chronic toxicity tests,
the no-effect level in the diet was 250 ppm for rats, 1250
ppm for dogs. Tolerances of 0.1 ppm have been established
for bromacil residues in or on citrus fruits and pineapple.
Bromacil is relatively nontoxic to birds. It is slightly
to moderately toxic to fishes. No data are available on its
toxicity to wild mammals, soil organisms or lower aquatic
organisms, nor on its possible build-up in food chains.
Bromacil is moderately persistent in the soil. Rate of deg-
radation depends on rainfall, soil properties, soil environ-
ment, microbial activity, and other factors. In one test,
the half-life of bromacil applied at the rate of 4 Ib Al/acre
was about 5-6 months. No data are available on the extent
to which microbial activity and/or nonbiological factors may
contribute to the degradation of bromacil in the soil. It
is subject to leaching and, based on laboratory studies and
its water solubility, may also be expected to be transported
away from target areas as a solute in surface runoff water,
or adsorbed on soil solids.
Evaluation : There are no indications of serious hazards to human health
or to terrestrial ecosystems outside of target areas from
the use of bromacil for weed or vegetation control i.n accor-
dance with label directions. Data on the possible effects
of bromacil on aquatic organisms and on Lts possible build-up
in food chains are not available and, consequently, possible
hazards in these fields cannot be estimated at this time.
224
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 14. 2,4-D
A. Product Description
Chemical Name; 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, its amine salts and esters,
Trade Names; A dozen or more
Pesticide Class: 2,4-D is a selective herbicide used against broadleaf
plants.
Properties: Solid; salts are water-soluble, acid and esters nearly insol-
uble; moderately toxic; nonpersistent.
B. Manufacturers
Name
Dow Chemical Company
Rhodia Inc., Chipman Div.
Transvaal Chemical
Plant Location
Plant Capacity Est. 1972 Prod.
Midland, Michigan 45-50 MM Ib/yr 40-45 MM Ib
Portland, Oregon 5-10 MM Ib/yr 5 MM Ib
Jacksonville, Arkansas 5-10 MM Ib/yr 5 MM Ib
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Information on Dow's production and waste control technology for
2,4-D has been reported.—' The reaction chemistry is:
+ C1CH2COOH
NaOB
Dichloro-
phenol
Chloroacetic
acid
2,4-D Sodium
salt
sters
Dow r-tuamical Compai
IEie
-3-2>
j^gntinuous. Raw materials are: salt from brine wells in the area; benzene
from nearby Bay City by pipeline; acetic acid and acetic anhydride by rail.
The primary by-products, the inorganic chlorides, are extensively recycled,
and side-reaction product 2,6-dichlorophenol is converted to pentachlorophenol,
225
-------
N3
K)
C6H6-
NaCI
Solvent
or
Catalyst
•C6H5CI.
-Or
•NaOH-
Phenol
Plant
CH3COOH
(CH3CO)20
-*- C6H5OH-»-
Chloro
Phenol
Unit
15-40°C
-*-2,6-C6H3CI2OH, etc.
-^2,4-C6H3CI2OH
t
To Pentachlorophenol
-*-CICH2COOH*-
•CICH2COONa -*•
Acid-*-
-NaCI-*-
Filter
CakesI
Still |
Bottoms
NaCIO
NoOH
Incinerator
i
r
Scrubber
Trickling
Filter
*
Biological
Treatment
Discharge
Figure 32 - Production and Waste Schematic for 2,4-D (Dow Chemical)!/
-------
Dusts are collected and recycled. Liquid wastes are chemically treated,
passed through a special trickling filter and then to a biological waste
treatment plant. Solid wastes, still bottoms, etc., are incinerated; the
combustion gases are scrubbed, the water chemically treated, and sent to
the bio-waste plant.—'
Chipman has revealed little of their production process.— Chlo-
rine is generated on site and the process is presumably much like that of
Dow. The waste treatment facilities center on a charcoal absorption plant.—
Transvaal began operation in 1972 of the phenoxy herbicide plant
formerly operated for many years by Hercules, Inc. Total production capac-
ity for 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, Silvex and MCPA is believed to be about 10 million
Ib/year. All raw materials (including chlorine) are purchased. Wastewater
discharges are minimized by use of a floculation/settling pond and exten-
sive recirculation, and are monitored by the city and state.
D. Formulation. Packaging and Distribution
2,4-D is used primarily in the form of amine salts or high-volatile
or low-volatile esters, formulated as liquid concentrates. A variety of dif-
ferent brands and concentrations are on the market. Granular formulations are
also available, but are not used much.
Dow sells 40-60 formulations in addition to technical. The prod-
uct mix is approximately as follows:
Esters
Sales
•Formulations > Sales
2,4-D Acid, wet ^ ^is-9> Amines ^
>Sales
*Acid, dry
^Formulations-
Perhaps 50% of total production is shipped in tank cars (mostly
8,000-gal., some 4,000-gal.) and the remainder in bags and drums. Contain-
ers for esters and amines range from tank cars to 5-gal. cans. Formulated
products usually go to smaller containers and dry products to 50-lb bags.
Over 250,000 5-gal. cans are packaged per year.
Most of the 2,4-D sales are in the grain states. Sales are made
primarily through other companies such as AmChem, American Oil, Guth and
Farmland Industries.
227
-------
Chipman does not retail 2,4-D. About 50% of production is sold
as acid, with formulation done at Portland and outside. Amine salts and
the octyl and butyl esters are formulated in Portland, in Chipman facilities
in North Kansas City and St. Paul, and by outside formulators. The 2,4-D
products are shipped in tanks (rail and truck) down to 1-gal. cans.
Transvaal does not retail 2,4-D but wholesales instead to a num-
ber of national distributors and larger buyers. Sales are well distributed
geographically except that very little is sent west of the Rocky Mountains.
E. Use Patterns
General
Action
Target crops
Target weeds
Application
Rates of :
application
Frequency
Time of :
application
Estimated :
distribution
2,4-D is one of the most inexpensive selective herbicides.
It provides very economical control of target weeds.
_Sjele^^ive_hecb_icide_ for control of broadleaf weeds and
brush. Interferes with the normal growth processes of many
dicotelydenous plants. Exact mode of action not known de-
spite numerous studies.
Small grains; corn; sorghum; sugarcane; rice; pastures and
rangeland; lawn and turf; additional minor crop uses; uses
on noncropland.
Many broadleaf weeds, brush.
Primarily nnTt-?mprpence spraying; some pre-emergence use
on corn; some use in mulches in lawn and garden market.
Broadcast application by ground or air. For brush control,
often used in combination with 2,4,5-T or other herbicides.
0.25 to 2.0 Ib Al/acre against herbaceous weeds on cropland;
1.0 up to 16 Ib (mostly 3-4 Ib) Al/acre on noncropland and
against woody weeds.
For most uses, one application per season. Sugarcane may
receive three or four treatments per year.
Late spring and early summer, after crops and weeds emerge.
(All figures in millions of Ib Al/year, 1972)
U.S. Production Imports
55 Negl.
Exports
7
Domestic Consumption
48
228
-------
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Industr. Government Home and
Region Agricultural Comm. Agencies Subtotal Garden—' Totals
NE 1.0 0.9 0.1 2.0
SE 2.5 1.2 0.4 4.1
NC 19.0 1.5 0.6 21.1
SC 5.0 1.5 0.5 7.0
NW 6.4 0.3 1.1 7.8
SW 2.1 0.6 0.3 3.0
Totals 36.0 6.0 3.0 45.0 3.0 48.0
a/ Geographic distribution not known.
A materials flow diagram for 2,4-D is shown in Figure 33.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals : Other phenoxy-type herbicides including MCPA, 2,4,5-T; di-
camba (Banvel); picloram (Tordon); silvex.
Nonchemical : Mechanical removal of weeds by cultivation, hoeing, etc.;
changing crop rotation, planting dates, etc.; none of these
economically attractive.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian : 2,4-D is moderately toxic to laboratory mammals via the oral
Toxicity and dermal route, and only slightly toxic by inhalation.
Most commercial 2,4-D formulations fall within the "slightly
toxic" category and require only the signal word "Caution"
on their labels. Some formulations may be irritating to
eyes, nose, throat and/or skin.
In chronic toxicity tests, no-effect levels in the diets of
rats and dogs were of the order of 500-1,200 ppm. Tolerances
for 2,4-D residues have been established for a number of
crops, ranging from 0.5-20.0 ppm, 5.0 ppm being the most com-
mon level.
No cumulative toxic effects have been reported for 2,4-D.
229
-------
ho
u>
o
\ Ta
South Central i
2, 4-D Millions
1972 Estimated: Lbs. AI
- U.S. Production 55.0
- Imports Negl.
- Exports
7.0
- U.S. Supply 48.0
Production Plant
\
Figure 33 - Materials Flow Diagram for 2,4-D, 1972
-------
Nontarget
Organisms
Environment
Evaluation
2,4-D is moderately toxic to some species of fish
under laboratory conditions; slightly toxic to lower
aquatic organisms, birds, and wild mammals; and pract-
ically non-toxic to soil organisms. It does not build
up in food chains.
High-volatile ester formulations of 2,4-D may cause
injury to nearby susceptible plants through
volatilization. Label directions for use are
designed to prevent this.
2,4-D degrades rapidly in the environment after
application. It is broken down by biological
organisms as well as by sunlight and other non-
biological factors. Soil residues generally disappear
within 1-4 weeks. Volatilization and leaching rates
vary for different 2,4-D derivatives and formulations;
but the environmental mobility of intact 2,4-D is
generally low due to the low persistence of the
chemical.
The use of 2,4-D for weed control in accordance
with label directions involves few if any known
hazards to human health or to the environment.
This statement is supported by the fact that 2,4-D
has been in large-scale, large-volume commercial
use worldwide for many years, with a good safety
record, except for cases of damage to susceptible
vegetation near target areas due to careless use,
especially of high-volatile ester formulations.
The product's low cost might tend to invite un-
necessary use. However, it is used primarily post-
emergence rather than preventively, and overuse
(excessively high rates) may damage desirable
vegetation. These factors present built-in con-
straints against gross misuse.
231
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 15. DIURON
A. Product Description
Chemical Name: 3-(3,4-Dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea
Trade Names: Di-on, Diurex, Karmex
Pesticide Class: Selective herbicide; non-selective weed killer; urea her-
bicide
Properties: White crystals melting at 158-159°C. Solubility very low in
hydrocarbons; only 42 ppm in water.
B. Manufacturers
Estimated 1972
Name Plant Location Plant Capacity Production
E. I. du Pont de La Porte, Texas Est. 30 million Ib 6.5 million Ib
Nemours & Co., Inc. total ureas
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
DuPont has been the only domestic producer of diuron, although the
patents expired in the late 1960's and several foreign manufacturers exist.*
DuPont declined to discuss details of their manufacturing process, but the
reaction chemistry is believed to be approximately as follows:
Cl 100-200°C Cl
V~\ ~m3 ^ (CH,)7NH tf\ E 9 /CH3
Cl-// XV-NH2 + NH2CONH2 = > ——3 2 > Cl-// VN-C-N
\^=i/ f Alcohol or \ \=/ CH~
\Phenol Solvent/
3,4-Dichloroaniline Urea
A tentative production and waste schematic is shown in Figure 34. Raw mate-
rials were said to received primarily from the East Coast by tank car, but
some are obtained locally and some via the Houston ship channel. Wastes are
disposed of in treatment facilities that service the entire La Porte site,
including incineration, biological treatment/discharge and deep sea dumping.
* Crystal Chemical Company of Texas may produce diuron in 1974.
232
-------
NH3 (CH3)2NH
Urea
Solvent
^-
^
t
Reactor
Distill
to
Crude
Diuron
1
30-35% HCI-
H2O-
I
Precipitator
T
Diuron
Insolubles
Aqueous
Wastes
Disposal
at Sea
Figure 34 - Production and Waste Schematic for Diuron
-------
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
Technical diuron is formulated principally into a 80% WP and, in
lesser amounts, into a 2.8 Ib/gal. flowable concentrate, or 10% granules.
Shipment of the technical solid and 80% WP diuron is in drums or bags by
rail or truck. The granular formulation is not marketed by DuPont. Diuron
may also be formulated in combination with other herbicides. Diuron usage
is fairly concentrated in the southern tier of states.
E. Use Patterns
General
Action
Target Crops
Target Weeds
Application
Rates of :
Application
Frequency
Diuron was one of the first substituted urea herbicides to
be developed. It is still the leading product in this
group today in terms in volume. Diuron has been in commer-
cial use in the U.S. for over 20 years for farm as well as
for nonagricultural weed control. Nonfarm uses account for
the larger use volume today.
Broad-spectrum, soil-applied herbicide; selective at lower
rates. Controls susceptible weed seedlings. Absorbed
through the root system, to a much lesser extent through
stems and foliage. Diuron strongly inhibits the Hill reac-
tion, indicating photosynthesis inhibition in vivo.
Noncropland, for complete vegetation control. Cotton,
sugarcane, pineapple, many other field, vegetable and fruit
crops. Registered for use on about 40 crops.
Annual grass and broadleaf weeds if used as a selective her-
bicide. General vegetation killer at higher rates. Works
best on seedling weeds.
For general vegetation control, broadcast or spot treatment
by ground equipment. For selective weed control, applied
pre-emergence, or as directed post-emergence spray between
rows. Used mostly by itself, sometimes followed by another
post-emergence herbicide. No air applications.
For selective weed control, 0.5 to 2.0 Ib Al/acre, up to
6.4-8.0 Ib Al/acre. For general vegetation control, 4-16 Ib
Al/acre for control of annuals; 16-48 Ib Al/acre for control
of perennials.
Once per season for selective weed control. As required,
depending on climate, length of vegetation season, etc., for
general vegetation control-
234
-------
Time of : At planting time in selective weed control.
Application general vegetation control.
Estimated : (All figures in millions of Ib Al/year, 1972)
Distribution
U.S. Production
Imports
Exports
Domestic Consumption
6.5
0.7
0.5
6.7
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Region Agricultural
NE
SE
NC
SC
NW
SW
0.1
0.2
Negl.
0.8
0.1
1.3
Indus tr.
Comm.
0.3
0.8
0.6
1.3
0.4
0.4
Subtotals
0.4
1.0
0.6
2.1
0.5
1.7
Government
Agencies
Home and
Garden
Totals
Totals
2.5
3.8
6.3
Negl
6.7
a/ Too small to break out by regions.
A materials flow diagram for diuron is shown in Figure 35.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals
Nonchemical
For selective uses: Fluometuron (Cotoran, Lanex); norea
(Herban); prometryne (Caparol); DCPA (Dacthal); combinations
of grass and broadleaf weed killers.
For nonselective uses: Bromacil (Hyvar); simazine (Princep);
chlorates-borates; TCA; prometone (Pramitol); many other herbi-
cides and herbicide combinations.
Mechanical removal of weeds by tillage, cultivation, hoeing or
pulling by hand or, in the case of agricultural uses, other
farm management practices. None of these are as effective as
the use of herbicides.
Nonselective removal of unwanted vegetation from right-of-ways,
industrial sites, railroad yards, etc., is not feasible without
the use of chemicals. Inorganic chemicals were used for such
purposes (and are still in use today) until more effective
organic herbicides were developed during the last 2-3 decades.
235
-------
N>
UJ
ON
Diuron Millions
1972 Estxisatedi 1.1)5,. AI
- U.S. Production 6.5
- Inports 0.7
- Exports
- U.S. Use 6-7
0.4
Government Agencies
V \ *
'I i ""•J
V 5
\\ ^ .. 7\.
Figure 35 - Materials Flow Diagram for Dluron, 1972
-------
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian
Toxicity
Nontarget
Organisms
Environment
Evaluation
Diuron is in the "slightly toxic" category in
regard to its toxicity to laboratory animals in
acute as well as in chronic tests. Diuron may be
moderately irritating to eyes, nose, throat and
skin, but does not produce allergic skin reactions.
The signal word "Caution" is required for labels
of the 80% wettable powder formulation
Tolerances for diuron residues have been established
for many crops, ranging from 0.1-7.0 ppm, 1.0 ppm
for the largest number of crops.
Diuron is slightly toxic or relatively nontoxic
to birds and wild mammals. It is moderately toxic
to fishes, and appears to be quite toxic to lower
aquatic organisms. No data are available on the
possible build-up of diuron in food chains.
Diuron is a rather stable chemical. In the soil,
it is adsorbed on clay or organic particles.
Persistence of diuron in the soil depends on the
rate of application and on soil properties, mois-
ture, temperature and other environmental conditions.
The higher rates of application for selective weed
control may result in carryover of phytotoxic soil
residues to the next season. When nonselective
rates are applied, soil residues may persist for
several years.
Microbial activity is the primary factor in the
degradation of diuron residues in the soil.
Dissipation by photodecomposition or volatiliza-
tion is insignificant, except when residues are
exposed to hot, dry conditions for prolonged
periods. Diuron has a low leaching potential,
but may be transported away from target areas with
soil solids by way of erosion.
There are no indications of serious hazards to
human health or to terrestrial ecosystems outside
of target areas from the use of diuron as a
herbicide. Data on effects on aquatic ecosystems,
especially lower trophic levels, are inadequate
for evaluation of possible hazards.
237
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 16 MSMA
A. Product Description
Chemical Name: Monosodium methanearsenate
Trade Names: Ansar 170 H.C., Ansar 529 H.C., Bueno, Daconate, Phyban H.C.,
Silvisar 550, Weed-E-Rad
Pesticide Class: Selective herbicide
Properties: Solid, m.p. 115-119°C;*very soluble in water (100 g/100 g).
B. Manufacturers
Estimated 1972
Name Plant Location Plant Capacity Production
Ansul Company Marinette, Wisconsin 25 (est.) million Ib 14 million Ib
Diamond Shamrock Green Bayou, Texas 20 (est.) million Ib 10 million Ib
Chemical Company
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
MSMA is the most widely used of the group of organoarsenic herbi-
cides introduced in the 1950's, that also includes the octyl- and docecyl-
ammonium salts, the disodium salt (DSMA), and cacodylic acid (ditnethylarsinic
acid). Ansul, Diamond Shamrock, Vineland Chemical Company (Vineland, New
Jersey) and W. A. Cleary Corporation (New Brunswick, New Jersey) all produce
DSMA, bur only Vineland and Cleary made the alkylammonium salts in 1972,
and only Ansul produces cacodylic acid. Vineland and Dalton Chemicals (a
subsidiary of Crystal Chemical) may have started producing MSMA since 1972.
The DSMA can apparently serve as an intermediate in the manufacture of all
the others (alternate routes to cacodylic acid are available).
Diamond Shamrock provided many details of its production of MSMA.
The process is believed to be approximately as shown by the reaction equa-
tions .below and by the production and waste schematic shown in Figure 36.
This melting point range is for the 1.5 hydrated form--the anhydrous
MSMA decomposes and does not yield a melting point.
238
-------
U)
Crude
DSMA
DSMA Sales
• 58 % MSMA
Na2SO4
Liquid To Approved
Land Fill
Figure 36 - Production and Waste Schematic for MSMA
-------
As203 + 6NaOH - > 2Na3AsC>3 + 3H20
Arsenic Sodium
Trioxide Arsenite
Na3As03 + CH3C1 - > CH3AsO(ONa)2 + NaCl
Methyl i DMSA
Chloride
ONa
2CH3AsO(ONa)2
DSMA MSMA
Diamond imports arsenic trioxide (mostly from Sweden by ship and
Mexico by rail, but some from France) because that manufactured in the
United States (as a by-product of smelting operations) does not meet specifi-
cations. It is packed in 30-gal. metal drums. Methyl chloride is obtained
by rail from Ethyl Corporation in Louisiana. Sodium hydroxide is obtained
from other Diamond Shamrock facilities and is shipped in as 50% caustic by
truck and by rail. Sulfuric acid is available from a number of sources.
The first step of the process is performed in a separate, dedicated
building. The drums of arsenic trioxide are opened in an air-evacuated
chamber and automatically dumped into the 50% caustic. A dust collection
system is employed. The drums are washed carefully with water, the wash
water is added to the reaction mixture, and the drums are crushed and are
sold as scrap steel. The intermediate sodium arsenite is obtained as a 257»
solution and is stored in large tanks prior to further reaction. In the
next step, the 25% solution of sodium arsenite is treated with methyl chloride
to give the disodium salt, DSMA. Diamond sells some DSMA, for herbicide uses,
but DSMA must be used at higher application rates and is not as soluble as
MSMA, and has therefore never become as popular as MSMA.
In order to obtain MSMA, the solution is partially acidified with
sulfuric acid and the resulting solution is concentrated by evaporation.
The active ingredient is sold at a number of concentrations, but ~ 58% is
the maximum concentration that can be prepared without encountering an un-
desirable increase in viscosity.
As the aqueous solution is being concentrated, a mixture of sodium
sulfate and sodium chloride precipitates out; about 0.5 Ib per 100 Ib of active
ingredient. These salts, a troublesome disposal problem because they are con-
taminated with arsenic, are removed by centrifugation, washed in a 5-stage
counter current washing cycle, and then disposed of in a dump which is
240
-------
registered with the State of Texas. This dump is situated on nearly im-
permeable Beaumont clay, and has no aqueous runoff. Disposal of arsenic-
contaminated salts appears to be a major problem for Ansul, which apparently
does not have separation and washing facilities equivalent to Diamond's.
Diamond Shamrock's plant is a "low effluent" plant, although they
do discharge aqueous waste. Methanol, a side product of methyl chloride
hydrolysis, is recovered and used elsewhere in the plant, and recovered
water is recycled. Two equalization ponds are used and the discharge of
arsenic averages about 0.7-0.8 ppm, well under the 1 ppm allowed by their
permit from the Texas Water Quality Board. (This level is lower than the
arsenic level in many household detergents.) The total amount of arsenic
discharged amounts to only about 1/2 Ib per day.
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
The MSMA is formulated by Diamond Shamrock as liquids of 4-lb
technical ingredient per gallon and 6-lb AI per gal. Most of their MSMA is
shipped in tank cars or tank trucks, but some is shipped in 30- and 55-gal.
drums that are lined with a baked phenolic resin. Diamond Shamrock also
packages the MSMA in 1- and 5-gal. polyethylene jugs. The MSMA is sold both
with and without a surfactant. Most of Diamond's MSMA is used on cotton in
the Delta Region, although some is sent to California. Some MSMA (10-15% of
production) is exported to the Arabian countries, Israel, and South and Central
American countries.
Ansul Company sells MSMA plus a surfactant in two concentrations:
36% (4 Ib Al/gal) and 48% (6 Ib Al/gal). Both forms are packaged in 1-gal.
plastic jugs, 5-gal. liquid steel pails, and 30-gal. lined drums. In addi-
tion, Ansul formulates two MSMA products, 51% (6.67 Ib Al/gal) and 58%
(8 Ib Al/gal), that do not contain surfactant in the formulation.
E. Use Patterns
General : MSMA, along with DSMA (disodium methanearsonate) and cacodylic
acid, belong to the organic pentavalent arsenicals which are
distinctly less toxic to mammals than organic derivatives of
trivalent. As, or inorganic sodium arsenite or arsenic tri-
oxide. The selective, post-emergent efficacy against hard-
to-kill grass weeds is a unique property of MSMA. It has been
in commercial use for about 10 years. Its volume of use
today exceeds that of all other organic As herbicides by a
wide margin. Its use leveled off several years ago, but
has shown a renewed upward trend recently. Agricultural
uses amount for most of the estimated domestic consump-
tion of MSMA.
241
-------
Action
Selective, postemergence contact herbicides. Must contact
green plant tissues to be effective. Exact mode of action
not known.
Target Crops :
Target Weeds :
Application :
Rates of :
Application,
Lb AI/Acre
Frequency of :
Application
Time of :
Application
Cotton; established lawns and turf (except St. Augustine or
centipede grasses); noncropland; interspaces between tree
or plant bases in nonbearing fruit plantings.
Johnsongrass and other grass weeds, some broadleaf weeds.
Mixed with 2,4-0/2,4,5-T brush killers, MSMA increases kill
or dieback of woody weeds.
Cotton: preplant broadcast (only if planting is delayed and
weeds have emerged), or as a directed postemergence spray on
emerged weeds. Must be used with sufficient surfactant.
Used by itself or in combination with certain other herbi-
cides, by ground equipment. Established lawns and turf:
broadcast or spot application by ground equipment. Noncrop-
land: sprayed on foliage of vegetation to be controlled,
by ground equipment. Good coverage essential.
Cotton
2.0
Lawn/Turf
2.7-6.0
1-2 per season Multiple
3 in. to first Variable
bloom (late
spring, early
summer)
Noncropland
3.0-6.0
Multiple
Variable
Estimated : (All figures in millions of Ib Al/year, 1972).
Distribution
U.S. Production
24
Imports
Negligible
Exports
5
Domestic Consumption
19
242
-------
WISCONSIN "^v ^•.- 7^"'\ V
tf'/lOV;-^
37 - Materials Flow Dia8ranl for
MSMA,
-------
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Region Agricultural
Industrial,
Commercial
Government
Agencies
Sub-
totals
Home and
Garden3./
Totals
NE
SE
NC
SC
NW
SW
1.5
0.5
10.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.7
1.4
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
2.5
1.4
11.6
0.7
0.9
Totals
12.5
4.0
1.0
17.5
1.5
19.0
a/ Distribution not known.
A materials flow diagram for MSMA is shown in Figure 37.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals
Nonchemicals
On cotton: Fluometuron (Cotoran); prometryne (Caparol);
diuron (Karmex); norea (Herban). None of these are as
effective and as inexpensive as MSMA in providing post-
emergence control of hard-to-kill grass weeds. On established
lawns and turf: other arsenical herbicides. On noncropland:
many herbicides are used, but none would be direct replace-
ments for the organic arsenicals in physical, chemical and
biological properties.
Cotton weeds can be removed mechanically by cultivation
and/or hand labor. Grass weeds including crabgrass, nutsedge
and others can be removed from lawns and turf by hand. Where
weed infestation pressure is heavy, this would be prohibitively
expensive and ineffective compared to the use of herbicides.
Nonchemical controls thus would be feasible only in situations
of low weed density.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian : The acute oral LD-50 of pure MSMA to rats is about 900
Toxicity mg/kg, placing it into the "slightly toxic" category by
this parameter. Tests with rabbits show that MSMA is
essentially nonirritating to nose, eyes, and skin. Labels
244
-------
Nontarget
Organisms
of MSMA formulations carry the signal word "Caution."
No data are available on the chronic toxicity (2-year
feeding tests) of MSMA; however, 90-day feeding tests
show no effect with the amounts: dogs - 30 ppm MSMA per
day; rats - 100 ppm MSMA per day. Tolerances for residues
of MSMA have been established (all expressed as AS203)
for citrus fruits at 0.35 ppm, cottonseed at 0.7 ppm,
and cottonseed hulls at 0.9 ppm.
Arsenicals as a group have been suspected of producing
cancer. Scientists around the world have debated the
evidence presented for or against carcinogenicity of
arsenicals for many years. The question of carcinogenicity
is still unproven although attempts to produce carcinoma
in laboratory tests have failed.Zft'
MSMA appears to be relatively nontoxic to fishes and soil
organisms, and because of its use patterns, pose a minimal
hazard to wild mammals. In 8-day feeding tests, MSMA was
also shown to be relatively nontoxic to birds. A study on
lower aquatic organisms and food chain buildup is currently
in progress.
Environment
Degradation studies on MSMA showed that after application
to soil, phytotoxicity decreases. While the metabolism
of most organic herbicides leads to the formation of less
toxic products, metabolism of the methanearsonic acids in
soils yield the inorganic arsenate, a form that is more
toxic to mammals but that occurs in nature. According to a
spokesman for one of the producers, degradation may proceed
by two routes; C-As cleavage to C02 and arsenate (aerobic
conditions) or reduction to volatile methylarsines
(anaerobic or oxidative conditions). The latter process,
the most common in nature, yields a salt of orthoarsinic
acid. This acid is naturally occurring and strongly bound
to metals in soils and sediments, which greatly deactivates
it.
Evaluation : There is no evidence of serious hazards to human health
from the use of MSMA as a herbicide in accordance with
label directions. The question of possible carcinogenicity
of organic arsenicals in general is unresolved.
245
-------
Data on possible effects of MSMA and its residues on ter-
restrial and aquatic ecosystems show it to be of minimal
hazard if used as directed. Data on effects on lower
aquatic organisms are insufficient at this point to allow
an evaluation of possible hazards.
In the National Soils Monitoring Program, elemental arsenic
residues were found at 99.3% of the sites sampled, ranging
from 0.25-107.45 ppm, averaging 6.43 ppm. The authors be-
lieve that most of this arsenic was from natural sources,
although they did not rule out contributions from agri-
cultural sources. Among the 12 states that had the highest
arsenic residue levels in the soil, only one, i.e., Arkansas,
is a cotton growing state. Thus, there were no correlations
between high soil residue levels of arsenic and the growing
of cotton, the crop ca^i i =. .ves the lion's share of
arsenical herbicide applications.
246
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 17 SODIUM CHLORATE
A. Product Description
Chemical Name; Sodium Chlorate
Trade Names: Altacide, Atratol, Chlorax, De-Fol-Ate, Drop-Leaf, Fall,
MBC, Monobor-chlorate, Polybor Chlorate, Rasikal,
Shed-A-Leaf, Tumbleaf
Pesticide Class; Semipermanent sterilant, herbicide, defoliant, dessicant
Properties; Water-Soluble, White crystals, m.p. 248°C, b.p., decomposes
B. Manufacturers
Name
Brunswick Chemical
Georgia-Pacific
Hooker Industry Chera.
Huron Chemicals
Kerr-McGee
Penn-Olin
Pennwalt
Plant Location
Brunswick, Georgia
Bellingham, Washington
Columbus, Mississippi
Niagara Falls, New York
Taft, Louisiana
Butler, Alabama
Riegelwood, North Carolina
Henderson, Nevada
Aberdeen, Mississippi
Calvert City, Kentucky
Portland, Oregon
Plant Capacity Estimated 1972
(MM lb/yr)
Production —'
14
7
125
31
40k/
8
.na 14
60
65
62
33
459
0
0
1.3
0.3
0.4
0
0
26.6
2.6
2.5
1.3
35. O*7
aj Portion of production that is used for herbicidal purposes.
b/ Planned capacity is expected to reach 90 MM lb/yr by January 1975.
247
-------
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Sodium chlorate is produced by the electrolysis of an acidified
sodium chloride solution, as illustrated by the equation below:
Electrolysis
NaCl + 3H20 '• '• > NaCl03 + 3H;2
6 Faradays
A production and waste schematic is shown in Figure 38. The
process has been described in considerable detail.Zz.1 Salt (sodium chloride)
is charged into a dissolving tank, where it is converted into a saturated
solution by the addition of soft water. The condensate from the evaporator
serves as a convenient source for the latter. Generally some mud and salt
impurities collect at the bottom of the dissolver, from which they are
periodically discharged. If the salt contains a high percentage of cal-
cium and magnesium salts, it is usually necessary to purify the solution
by precipitation, settling, and filtration of the foreign salts.
The clarified saturated salt solution is run into a feed tank,
where it is mixed with dilute hydrochloric acid. A concentration of about
0.57, acid is usually maintained so that the average pH of the brine solu-
tion in the cells will be approximately 6.5. Sodium dichromate (about
0.27,) is added to inhibit cell corrosion caused by the liberated hypo-
chlorous acid (from the hydrochloric acid present).
The saturated acidulated brine is fed into banks of electrolytic
cells, operating batchwise or continuously, maintained at 40° to 45°C by
cooling water. The construction and operation of the cells vary in dif-
ferent installations. Generally the cell bodies are constructed of steel
(some are cement-lined) and make use of steel cathodes and graphite anodes.*
There is no diaphragm in the cell, and the electrodes are closely spaced
to allow mixing of the products. The electrolysis actually yields chlorine
at the anode and sodium hydroxide at the cathode. However, because of the
foregoing conditions, good mixing occurs, resulting in the formation of
sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) and then sodium chlorate (NaClC>3). Hydrogen is
liberated during the electrolysis and may be either vented or recovered
by suitable means. One producer noted that it is considering the recovery
of hydrogen for use as fuel because of the energy crisis.
The cells require DC electric power; it is obtained by converting
AC power in mercury-arc or motor-generator rectifiers.
The cell liquors, after electrolysis, are discharged into a
settler. In batch operation, generally 757» of the salt is converted. The
liquor in the settler may be heated to 90°C to destroy any residual hypo-
chlorite.
As discussed later in this section, chlorate producers are in the process
of switching over from graphite to dimensionally-stable anodes.
248
-------
Condensate Ts
Sodium
dichromate
Hydrochloric 111
*r«i ".Y,
^ Feed
1
Hydrogen
Barium
chloride
1 '
[i
f
t
"n
1
3
•ii
^
•
[
e
_/
}-
J v*^Crystalh;er|
Centn
Sodium
chlorate
Figure 38 - Production and Waste Schematic for Sodium Chlorate—'
249
-------
The chromate ions remain in the liquor and protect steel equip-
ment from corrosion further along in the process. Formates or urea may
be added to the liquors in the settler to convert the residual hypo-
chlorite to chlorate. Graphite mud from the anodes settles to the
bottom of the tank and is periodically removed.
The liquor contains about 50% sodium chlorate. It is decanted
from the top of the settler, passed through a sand filter (if necessary),
and charged into double-effect evaporators. Here it is concentrated to
approximately 70 to 757<> sodium chlorate and is filtered while hot. The
unconverted sodium chloride is less soluble than the chlorate at boiling
temperatures and is thrown out of solution. The recovered salt (filter
cake) is returned to the dissolver for reuse.
The filtrate is passed into a crystallizer, where it is cooled
(below 30°C) to precipitate sodium chlorate crystals. The product is
centrifuged, washed, and dried in rotary dryers. The centrifuge mother
liquor and first wash liquors are generally returned to the evaporator for
subsequent concentration, although periodically they are returned to the
cell feed tank for reprocessing.
The dried product is ground to proper mesh size and screened to
yield sodium chlorate crystals, which assay about 99.5%. Although the
initial conversion of sodium chloride to chlorate ranges from 50 to 75%,
the overall yield (based on the salt charged) is about 95%. The current
efficiency averages 75 to 85%, depending on the individual plant.
Sodium chlorate may be recovered from the cell liquors by
other methods than the previously described concentration process. These
other procedures include direct crystallization by refrigerative cooling
(about 0°C) and salt exchange (isothermal crystallization) where the
chlorate is salted out by addition of sodium chloride.
The chief variations in electrolytic processes for sodium
chlorate are in recovery of the product from the cell liquors, which may
be accomplished by chilling, salting out, or evaporation. The particular
method used depends on conditions existing at a given plant. Considerable
care must be taken in the operation of any chlorate plant, because of the
potential fire and explosion hazard. A technical operating staff well
versed in the control of operating hazards is accordingly a necessity in
the industry.
250
-------
Waste control technology: Waste control techniques vary con-
siderably as indicated in the following description of methods provided
by Hooker Chemical Company and Pennwalt.
At the Hooker Chemical Company plant, Columbus, Mississippi,
carbon from the electrodes is lost at a rate of 15 Ib/ton of NaClO- pro
duced. Approximately 12 Ib of carbon is recovered to be sold. Most
of the remaining 3 Ib ends up in the "mud" waste stream of the process.
Some of the carbon is oxidized to C02 in the cell and is given
off with the hydrogen gas formed in the cell. The recovered carbon comes
from the filtration system. Recovered carbon, including used electrodes,
is sold. Plant emissions consist primarily of the "mud" and gaseous
effluents. The mud consists of the bottoms of the cells and the settling
and filtration systems following the addition of BaC^ to the cells'
liquor. The most important mud constituents are barium chromate, barium
sulfate, and graphite from the electrodes. This mud is discharged into the
river nearby. Hooker plans to start landfilling the "mud" in 1974 or 1975.
Gaseous emissions come from the cells in the form of hydrogen,
C02 (less than 170 of hydrogen), and traces of chlorine. They are vented
directly to the atmosphere. Hooker is not aware of any chlorinated hydro-
carbons being formed in the cells.*
The process has no liquid effluent except for occasional leaks.
A water scrubber is used to remove the NaClOo from the gases emitted from
the dryers'; however, the water in the scrubber is then recycled into the
evaporator system to recover the NaClOo.
At the Pennwalt plant barium chloride is not used to recover
chromate but sells the finished cell liquid, which contains chromate,
chlorate and chloride, to paper manufacturers (who utilize the chlorate).
Apparently, all of this liquid is sold, because there is no liquid effluent
from this plant.
A small amount of chromate-containing water is formed, however,
in another manner; in the evaporation of the cell liquid (which contains
chlorate, chloride and chromate) a vacuum is applied, and some of this
liquid is entrained into the vapor phase. This entrained liquid is sub-
sequently absorbed in the condensate of the steam jet, which is used to
generate the vacuum. There is some current concern about the proper dis-
posal of this chromate-containing water, even though the total volume is
small.
The possibility of by-product chlorinated hydrocarbons is discussed
later in this section.
251
-------
Chromate is also used as a corrosion inhibitor in the cooling
water. Other corrosion inhibitors had been considered, particularly cer-
tain organic nitrogen compounds, but these have been rejected because of
the potential hazard: the hot chlorate solution could explosively oxidize
the organic nitrogen compounds. The proper disposal of this chromate-
containing water is also of concern.
Pennwalt apparently does not have the same kind of mud disposal
problem as other chlorate producers. The brine is treated for chlorine as
well as chlorate; therefore, the mud is a chlorine (not a chlorate) problem.
They also treat the brine prior to electrolysis with sodium carbonate in
order to precipitate most of the magnesium and calcium. This precipitated
material, also called "mud" is presently allowed to accumulate at the
Pennwalt chlorate plant. Evidently, they have plenty of space and this
disposal technique is acceptable.
Possibility of the Formation of By-Product Chlorinated Hydro-
carbons: In the manufacture of chlorine, small quantities of chlorinated
hydrocarbons are formed, including some that are highly toxic and
difficult degraded in the environment (e.g., hexachlorobenzene). These
compounds are evidently formed as a result of interaction of chlorine
with the graphite electrode. These materials are practically eliminated
from chlorine, because of a distillation step. However, in sodium chlorate
manufacture, no comparable step occurs. Furthermore, in sodium chlorate
manufacture, the brine is recirculated and this procedure could allow the
gradual build-up of chlorinated hydrocarbon by-products in the brine.
Some industry sources confirm that by-product chlorinated hydro-
carbons are actually produced during sodium chlorate manufacture. However,
no analytical evidence is available and detection of hexachlorobenzene
has not been reported.
Dimensionally Stable Electrodes: According to Pennwalt, all
chlorate producers are presently in the process of switching from graphite
to the more efficient metallized electrodes, i.e. the so-called dimen-
sionally-stable anodes (DSA). The use of the new electrodes eliminates
the formation of wastes resulting from the deterioration of the graphite
anode. These would include the graphite "muds" and any chlorinated hydro-
carbons formed during the electrolysis.
D. Formulation. Packaging, and Distribution
Most of the sodium chlorate that is manufactured is used in
paper mills and is either generated on site or is shipped in tank car
quantities. Sodium Chlorate is sold for agricultural purposes by the
following companies: Kerr-McGee Corp., Hooker Chemical Corp., Penn-Olin
Chemical Co., Pennwalt Corp. and U.S. Borax Co. Solid sodium chlorate
is often formulated with borates to reduce the fire hazard, but aqueous
252
-------
solutions are safe and do not require borates. Approximately 17» of Hooker's
chlorate total production goes to agricultural use. These shipments are
made in steel drums of 50, 100, 450, and 600 Ibs. net or in bulk in tank
cars. The agricultural shipments are sent to Oxychem, U.S. Borax and
Chemical Corp., and Rhodia Inc., Chipman Division. None of Hooker's dis-
tribution is west of Texas with most of the product going to Kansas,
Kentucky, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri.
The U.S. Borax plant in Columbus, Mississippi receives its
chlorate from and formulates a 30% sodium chlorate-70% metaborate mixture
called Monobor. The formulation is in dedicated equipment and distribution
is nationwide. The U.S. Borax plant in California receives its sodium
chlorate primarily from Kerr-McGee Corp. (Henderson, Nevada) and produces
essentially the same products as the other U.S. Borax plant. The Monobor
products are packaged in 50 Ib. multi-wall bags.
Pennwalt estimates 4% of their production goes to agriculture.
The percentage is about the same for Penn-Olin (jointly owned by Olin Corp.
and Pennwalt Corp.). Their solid product is shipped in drums and in bulk.
Some of their pure sodium chlorate is also sold to U.S. Borax.
E. Use Patterns
General
Action
Sodium chlorate is one of the most heavily used inorganic
herbicides. At high rates of application, it kills all
vegetation nonselectively. At lower rates, it is effective
as a defoliant/desiccant. This latter use has declined,
but may become much more widely practiced as fuel shortages
increase the desirability of field-drying many crops.
Sodium chlorate is a strong oxidizing agent and, used by
itself, without fire retardants, it becomes a serious fire
and explosive hazard if in contact with organic matter.
Nonselective herbicide, destroys germinating seeds, plant
roots and foliage, and inhibits plant growth. Defoliant
and desiccant action at lower rates.
Target Crops
Kills all vegetation, including deep-rooted perennial
weeds, at high rates of application. More effective on
broadleaf plants than on grasses.
253
-------
Vegetation Control
Defoliation/desiccation
Rates of
Application
Frequency
Time of
Application
300 - 1,000 Ibs. Al/acre
(Up to 1,300 Ibs. Al/acre)
As needed, usually less
than 1 application per year
Variable
4-6 Ibs. Al/acre
(.Up to 16 Ibs. Al/acre
on potatoes)
One treatment/season
Fall (just prior to crop
harvest)
U.S. Production
400
Imports
30.0
Exports Domestic Consumption
Negl. 430 Total
35 Pesticide Use
Pesticidal Use by Category and Geographic Region
Region
NE
SE
NC
SC
NW
SW
Agric. Industr. Coma.
1.7
3.8
3.4
7.5 6.1
0.1 1.9
7.4 2.1
Gov't Agn. Home & Garden Totals
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
Totals 15.0 19.0 1.0 Negl.
A materials flow diagram for Sodium Chlorate is shown in Figure 39.
1.8
4.0
3.6
13.8
2.1
9.7
35.0
F. Alternatives
Chemicals
Nonchemical
Many other herbicides and herbicide combinations are
used for vegetation control. None of these are similar
to sodium chlorate in chemical, physical and biological
properties.
Nonselective removal of unwanted vegetation from
industrial and commercial premises and right-of-ways
is not feasible without the use of chemicals. Inorganic
chemicals including sodium chlorate have been used for
such purposes since before 1900.
254
-------
NEBRASKA
Northwest *i>'o
3.6
North Central
\
4.0
Southeast
South Central
Na-Chlorate Millions
1972 Estimated: Lbs. AI
- U.S. Production 400.0
- Imports 30.0
- Exports Negl.
- U.S. Supply 430.0
- Pesticxde Qse 35.0
«= Production Plant
Figure 39 - Materials Flow Diagram for Sodium Chlorate, 1972
-------
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian
Toxicity
Nontarget
Organisms
Environment
Evaluation
The oral acute LD-50 of sodium chlorate to rats is
is 5000 mg/kg, placing it into the slightly toxic
to relatively nontoxic category by this criterion.
Sodium chlorate is severely irritating to mucuous
membranes. No data are available on its acute in-
halation toxicity, nor on its chronic toxicity, and
no residue tolerances have been set. Cottonseed
has been exempted from the requirement of a tolerance,
and an additional exemption has recently been requested
for residues on sorghum that may result from the use
of sodium chlorate as a desiccant in grain sorghum
productions. Labels require the signal word "Caution."
Sodium chlorate is toxic to livestock, birds and
other animals feeding in treated areas. It is
moderately toxic to fish, and probably highly toxic
to soil organisms and other forms of life in target
areas.
At the high rates of application required for complete
vegetation control, sodium chlorate is quite persistent
in the soil. It is highly water soluble and thus
subject to leaching, or removal from treated areas by
surface run-off. No data are available on the routes,
rates or mechanisms of its degradation in the environment.
Phytotoxic effects in the soil persist for one year or
longer following application at commercial use rates.
Sodium chlorate may be severely irritating to operators.
It is a strong oxidizing agent and, while not flammable
by itself, renders dangerously flammable organic matter
with which it comes in contact, including clothes, shoes,
dead vegetation, etc. Addition of fire retardants (see
above under "Application") is designed to prevent this
hazard. No subacute or chronic hazards to human health
have been attributed to the use of sodium chlorate as
a herbicide.
Data on its possible transport away from target areas,
environmental mobility, and pathways are not sufficient
for an evaluation of hazards in this regard. All weed
control uses combined account for less than 10% of the
total U.S. consumption of sodium chlorate.
256
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 18 TRIFLURALIN
A. Product Description
Chemical Name; a,a,a-Trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine
Trade Names: Treflan, Triflurex
Pesticide Class: Selective herbicide; Nitroaromatic
Properties: Low melting solid of low volatility and water solubility; very
low toxicity; nonpersistent
B. Manufacturers
Estimated 1972
Name Plant Location Plant Capacity Production
Eli Lilly and Company Lafayette, Indiana 35 (estimate) 21 million Ib
million Ib
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Information on production methods and waste control technology for
trifluralin have been reported.!.' The reaction chemistry is:
CF3-C6H4-C1
N(C3H7)2 + NaCl
257
-------
A production and waste schematic is shown in Figure 40.
Process water and NaCl go to waste disposal; NOx to scrubbers;
is upgraded and sold; no solid wastes from Tref laii^ (trifluralin). The
waste disposal plant uses neutralization, settling, aeration and biological.
The effluent discharged is cleaner than the river water and contains no
TrefIan. All liquid formulation and filling equipment is dedicated. There
are few problems with leaks. Corrugated layers between cans and strapped
pallets are used for shipment.
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
Eli Lilly produces trifluralin on site by a continuous process.
It is formulated as TrefIan® 4-lb/gal. (44.5% AI) packaged in 5-gal. lined
cans and in metal quarts, and as 2.5% and 5% granular formulations. Usage
breakdowns are as follows: ~ 60% on soybeans, ~ 30% on cotton, and «* 10%
on other usages. Ten percent of the technical trifluralin is exported.
E. Use Patterns
General
Action
Target Crops
Target Weeds
Trifluralin was the first dinitroaniline-type herbicide to
be developed. It remains the leading herbicide in this
group to date, even though a number of competitive compounds
have since been developed and are currently in various stages
of commercial or experimental use. Dinitroaniline-type
herbicides as a group are expected to further increase in
volume of use. The uses of trifluralin for nonagricultural
purposes are negligible or nil.
Selective, soil-applied, preplant or preemergence herbicide
for control of annual grass weeds and some annual broad-
leaves. Affects seed germination and other growth processes.
Inactive if applied to plant foliage.
Soybeans, cotton, Spanish peanuts, beans, sugar beets, sugar-
cane, and many other field and vegetable crops. Registered
for use on more than 50 crops.
Annual grass weeds, including Johnsongrass seedlings
(rhizomes at higher rates), wild cane, pigweed, and lambs-
quarter. Ineffective against most other broadleaf weeds,
and against yellow nutsedge.
258
-------
NJ
Ul
^ Mononitrator -^^ Storage j Acic
HNO3- e
Sold
NH(C
ver/ H20
it 1
• .,,.., • — _— .— ^tnrnn^ •
• -j I • in CHCI3 Re Filter
1
r
Decanter
i
/- j - Vac
\
uum
1
Vac f
Exhaust Trifluralin (e.
Salt
-^ Water
Waste
^ Aromatic
Naptha
c.)
Figure 40 - Production and Waste Schematic for Trifluralin"
I/
-------
Application
Rates of :
Application
Frequency ;
Time of :
Preplant, preeraergence; must be soil-incorporated promptly.
Used mostly by itself, sometimes followed by another herbi-
cide against uncontrolled broadleaf weeds. Most material
applied broadcast by ground equipment.
0.5-1.0-lb Al/acre. Up to 2.0-lb Al/acre for fall applica-
tions, for use on sugarcane, and in pecan and citrus plant-
ings.
Once per season.
Mostly spring, prior to planting of crop. Small percentage
Application of applications preceding fall.
Estimated :
Distribution
(All figures in millions of Ib Al/year, 1972).
U.S. Production
21
Imports
Nil
Exports
Domestic Consumption
17
Totals
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Region
NE
SE
NC
SC
w
Industrial,
Agricultural Commercial
0.4
2.3
6.4 Small
6.1
1.6
Government
Agencies
Negligible
Home and
Garden Totals
0.4
2.3
Small 6.5
6.2
1.6
16.8
0.2S/-
17.0
a/ Too small to break out, apportioned and included in total distribution.
A materials flow diagram for trifluralin is shown in Figure 41.
260
-------
-*. f—
VJ ""s^-r-..
'<* •-...
Tnfluralin Millions
1972 Estimated: Lbs. AI
- U.S. Production 21.0
- Imports None
- Exports 4.0'
- U.S. Supply
17.0
Figure 41 - Materials Flow Diagram for Trifluralin, 1972
-------
F. Alternatives
Chemicals
Nonchemicals
Other dinitroaniline-type herbicides including nitralin
(Planavin), dinitramine (Cobex) and others; chloramben
(Amiben), alachlor (Lasso), linuron (Lorox), vernolate
(Vernam), fluorodifen (Preforman, Soyex), chlorobromuron
(Maloran, Bromex), diphenamid (Enide), and others.
Mechanical removal of weeds by cultivation, hoeing, hand-
pulling, changing crop rotation, planting dates, etc. None
of these measures work too well on grass weeds, and all of
them would be more expensive than effective herbicides,
except in rather clean fields.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian : The mammalian toxicity of trifluralin is low. The chemical
Toxicity is relatively nontoxic to laboratory animals by the oral,
dermal and inhalation routes. The solvent system used in
the 4-lb/gal. EC, the most common commercial formulation,
is more toxic than the active ingredient. Therefore, while
the active ingredient is classified as "relatively nontoxic"
the 4-lb/gal. EC falls within the "slightly toxic" category
and requires the signal word "Caution" on the label.
Trifluralin AI is not irritating to mucuous membranes and
has no known cumulative toxic effects. Its chronic toxicity
is low.
Nontarget
Organi sms
Environment
Residue tolerances have been established for many crops,
ranging from 0.05-2.0 ppm.
Trifluralin is highly toxic to fish, toxic to lower aquatic
organisms, and relatively nontoxic to birds and wild mammals.
Its toxicity to soil organisms is not known. No published
data are available regarding its possible bioaccumulation
or build-up in food chains
Trifluralin is rapidly inactivated unless it is incorporated
into the soil promptly after application. In the soil, it
is strongly adsorbed on organic matter and clay colloids. It
is degraded by microbial action as well as by nonbiological
factors. Trifluralin is moderately persistent in the soil,
80-907, of an applied rate will normally degrade during the
growing season. Trifluralin does not readily leach through
the soil, but may be transported away from treated areas ad-
sorbed on solids via soil erosion.
262
-------
Evaluation : No serious hazards to human health have been attributed to
this date to the use of trifluralin for weed control as
directed on the label. Trifluralin presents a serious
hazard to fish if water becomes contaminated. Transport
of trifluralin soil residues from treated fields into bodies
of water in sufficient quantities to harm fish directly is
unlikely. Water contamination through misapplication,
cleaning of equipment, disposal of unwanted material or con-
tainers, or through effluent from manufacturing and formulat-
ing operations must be avoided.
Information presently available is insufficient for an
evaluation of possible subacute hazards to freshwater or
marine ecosystems from the use of trifluralin.
263
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 19 CAPTAN
A. Product Description
Chemical Name; N-trichloromethylthio-4-cyclohexene 1,2-dicarboximide
Trade Names: Merpan, Orthocide
Pesticide Class: Fungicide; Chlorinated organo-sulfur compound
Properties: Solid; nearly insoluble in water; very low toxicity; non-
persistent
B. Manufacturers
Name Plant Location Plant Capacity Est. 1972 Prod.
Calhio Chemical Perry, Ohio 25 million Ib 17 million Ib
(estimated)
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Information on production methods and waste control technology
for captan have been reported.—' The reaction chemistry is:
/2^
CH=CH2 CH-CO HC NCH-CO l.NaOH
I ]>0 + NH3 - > || | >NH 2,CC13SC1
CH-CO HC CH-CO
CH=CH2 CH-CO HC CH-CO
Butadiene Maleic Tetrahydrophthalimide
anhydride X/CH2
HC NCH-CO
w
NSCC13 + NaCl
HC CH-CO
Captan
I?
C$2 + 3C12 •*-> CC13SC1 + SC12
Perchloromethyl mercaptan
A production and waste schematic for captan is shown in Figure 42,
264
-------
U1
Vent
i
1
i *
Scrubber
T
CS2 to
DUTooiene — -^
NH3 *
1
Scrubber
f 1
H2n '
Ve
i
1
t
nt
f
Scrubber
1
f
ill
to Fin
,
ker
;
Scrubber
f
I
i
Ve
1
1
*
nt
i
t
Scrubber
'
'
PMM
Storage
THPI
Storage
i i i
Vent Vent
(Adapted from drawings supplied by Calhio Chemical)
1
Wo
Liq
/Lint
f Hoi
\Pon
!
Disc
to Ri
~L-^ r-^H
fc Captan _ _ .
-^ i in',t — ^-Captan to Package
"™~"^^
il I
- " '1
Baghouse Shipment
Vent
ste
uid
^\
ding]
d 7
Under _ Deep Well
Construction Disposal
f
narge
ver
Figure 42 - Production and Waste Schematic for Captan—
-------
The liquid effluents go to an asphalt-lined settling pond
where they are retained 6 to 7 days. The effluent from the pond goes
to a river and then to Lake Erie. This is monitored weekly and captan
is said to by "nil". The sanitary wastes go to a septic tank. The
solid wastes (spills, contaminated wastes from floors, etc.) are buried
on the plant property, trash paper (cardboard) goes to a local collector,
and metal scrap is sold to local scrap dealers. For air pollution con-
trol, baghouse stacks, filter hood exhaust, and packer baghouse stacks
are used. All materials from clean-up are recovered; dust goes to
broken bag handling, lumps are slurried and refiltered, and water goes
to the waste system. Captan is manufactured in equipment which is also
used in producing folpet (a fungicide). Raw materials are received by
tank cars, in drums, and by truck loads (bulk).
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
The technical product is packaged in 50 Ib. paper bags with
a polyethylene inner coat and Orion thread. Ortho, a division of Chevron,
has captan available as Orthocide® SOW (80% captan), Orthocide® SOW
(50% captan) a wide selection of dusts, and several Orthocide® seed pro-
tectants.
E. Use Patterns
General
Action
Target Crops
Captan was the first phthalimid fungicide to attain
widespread commercial use. It has been marketed since
about 1950 and has remained the most widely used fungi-
cide in this group to this date. It was welcomed
especially by deciduous fruit growers because it is
nonphytotoxic and does not adversely affect fruit finish
(as many other pesticides do).
Contact fungicide, broad spectrum; inhibits mycelial
growth from germinating fungus spores; protective (not
curative) action.
Apples, peaches, other deciduous fruits; strawberries,
grapes, citrus; vegetable crops; protection of seeds
(corn, sorghum, peanuts, soybeans, rice, many other
crops); ornamentals; commercial and industrial uses.
266
-------
Target
Diseases
Application
Rates of
Application
Frequency
Time of
Application
Estimated
Distribution
Scab; brown, black, blossom end, bitter and other
rots; grey mold, leaf spot and other foliar diseases;
Pythium and other seed and soil-borne disease organisms,
Foliar spray (or dust) treatments, mostly by ground
equipment; seed treatment by dry powder or aqueous
suspension (slurry), or in the planter box.
0.5-1.0 Ib. AI/100 gals, or 4-10 Ibs. Al/acre on tree
fruits; 2-3 Ibs. Al/acre on small fruits and truck
crops; 0.8-2.0 ozs. AI/100 Ibs. of seed (up to 9.0 ozs.
AI/100 Ibs. for some seeds).
Foliar treatments: 2-6, up to 10 applications per
growning season. Seed treatment: Once per season.
Seed treatments prior to planting; foliar treatments
throughout the growing season.
All figures in millions of Ib Al/year, 1972.
U.S. Production
17
Imports
Negl.
Exports
1
Domestic Consumption
16
Region
NE
SE
NC
SC
W
Totals
Domestic Use by Category and Geographic Region
Agricultural
3.5
2.0
2.0
0.5
2.0
10.0
Industrial/
Commercial
Gov't
Agencies
Home &
Garden
Totals
Negligible Negligible
16
A materials flow diagram for captan is shown in Figure 43.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals
Other phthalimid fungicides including folpet (Phaltan)
and captafol (Difolatan); dodine (Cyprex) against apple
scab; other organic and some inorganic fungicides.
267
-------
Captan Millions
1972 Estimated: Lbs_. A I
- U.S. Production 17.
- Imports >•< .ie
- Exports 1 .0
Figure 43 - Materials Flow Diagram for Captan, 1972
-------
Nonchemical
There are no practical nonchemical alternatives for
control of the plant diseases controlled by these
fungicides.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian
Toxicity
Nontarget
Organisms
Environment
Captan is relatively nontoxic to laboratory animals
by the oral, dermal and inhalation route. The
active ingredient is strongly irritating to eyes,
moderately irritating to nose and throat, and slightly
irritating to the skin. Formulated products and water
suspensions are proportionately less irritating. Allergic
dermatitis from exposure to captan has been reported by
at least one investigator, but does not appear to be a
frequent problem. Captan formulations carry the signal
word "Caution" on the label.
In chronic toxicity studies, the no-effect level in
the diet of rats was 1000 ppm. No cumulative toxic
effects have been reported. Residue tolerances for
captan have been established for a large number of
crops, ranging from 2-100 ppm, 25 ppm for most crops.
In a chicken embryo test, captan was one of three
fungicides that showed teratogenic activity. Follow-
ing these findings, several special studies on the
possible embryotoxicity, teratogenicity and mutag-
enocity of captan were conducted. The results ob-
tained appear to be contradictory at least in part,
and are difficult to interpret. Their possible
significance in regard to human health has not been
conclusively determined.
Captan is moderately toxic to fishes, relatively non-
toxic to birds and wild mammals. No data are avail-
able on its possible effects on lower aquatic organisms.
In the soil, captan is toxic to some fungi, but re-
latively nontoxic to many other soil organisms. There
are no data on possible build-up in food chains.
Captan is not persistent. Its fungicidal effective-
ness on treated foliage extends for 3-7 days. It may
volatilize from treated surfaces to some extent. Its
propensity for leaching is low. Surface run-off from
269
-------
Environment : target areas in water or on solids is not likely to
continued occur. Captan is degradable in the environment by
biological organisms as well as by nonbiological fact-
ors. It is rapidly degraded in water, soil, biota,
and under akaline conditions. Its half-life in soil
is generally less than one month, and there is no
problem of residue carryover to the next season.
Evaluation : Captan has been in large-scale commercial use world-
wide for more than twenty years. It may cause der-
matitis to persons handling it. There is no evidence
that serious other hazards to human health, or hazards
to terrestrial ecosystems outside of target areas are
associated with the use of captan as a fungicide.
Data on possible effects of captan on aquatic eco-
systems, especially lower aquatic organisms, are
insufficient for evaluation of possible hazards.
However, captan is not persistent, and migration of
captan residues from treated areas to lakes, streams,
or ponds in significant quantities is unlikely.
270
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 20. CREOSOTE
A. Product Description
Creosote is defined by the American Wood Preservers Association
as follows: "As used in wood preserving, creosote is a distillate of
coal tar produced by high temperature carbonization of bituminous coal.
It consists principally of liquid and solid hydrocarbons; it is heavier
than water and has a continuous boiling range of at least 125°C, beginning
at about 200°C."
No specific component of creosote is responsible for its fungicidal
activity. When creosote is fractionated into several narrow-boiling-range
components, fungitoxicity can be demonstrated for every fraction. The lower-
boiling fractions are more fungicidal than the higher ones, but they lack the
residual activity of the higher-boiling fractions and do not give adequate pro-
tection over long exposure periods. The more volatile components evaporate,
resulting in poor protection.
Bo Manufacturers and Plant Locations
Creosote is produced by the distillation of coal tar, which in
turn is obtained from the coking of coal. Almost all of the creosote
produced is used by companies engaged in the preservation of wood. Thus,
three types of manufacturers must be considered: coal tar producers, coal
tar distillers and wood preservation plants.
1. Producers of coal tar: The 64 coal tar producers in the
U.S. (1972) are listed in Table XXXII and a map showing their location
is presented in Figure 44. Four producers of coal tar also produce
creosote, i.e., U.S. Steel, Koppers, Allied Chemical and Great Lakes Steel.
2. Producers of creosote: The 24 creosote production plants
are listed in Table XXXIII. A map showing their location is presented
in Figure 45. Koppers and Western Tar Products are creosote producers
engaged in the preservation of wood.
3. Wood preservation plants: The wood preserving industry in
the United States is composed of more than 400 treating plants, of which
about 200 handle creosote. Most of the plants are concentrated in two
distinct regions. The larger region extends from East Texas to Maryland
and corresponds roughly to the natural range of the southern pines, the
major species utilized.
271
-------
TABLE XXXI ll6./
COAL TAR PRODUCERS IN THE UNITED STATES ON DECEMBER 31. 1972
Name
Location of
Paint
ALABAMA
1. Alabama Byproduct Corporation Tarrant
2. Republic Steel Corporation Gadsden
3. Republic Steel Corporation Thomas
4. Empire Coke Company Holt
5. U.S. Pipe and Foundry Company Birmingham
6. U.S. Steel Corporation Fairfield
7. Woodward Iron Company Woodward
CALIFORNIA
8. Kaiser Steel Corporation Fontana
COLORADO
9. Colorado Fuel and Iron Pueblo
Steel Corporation
Coal-Chemical
Materials
Produced^/
1,5,13
1,5,13,14,15,16,17,19
1,5,13,14,17,19
1,5,7,13,18
1,5,13,18
1,5,6,12,13,19
1,5,13,14,15,16,17,19
3,5,9,13,18
1,2,3,5,6,12,13,14,15,
16,17,19
ILLINOIS
10. Granite City Steel Company
11. Interlake, Inc.
International Harvester
Company
Republic Steel Corporation Chicago
Granite City 1,5,13,18
Chicago 1,5,13,19
Chicago 1,5,13
1,5,8,13,19
272
-------
Name
TABLE XXXII (Continued)
Location of
Plant
Coal-Chemical
Materials
Produced3-/
INDIANA
12. Bethlehem Steel Corporation Burns Harbor 1,5
13. Citizens Gas and Coke Utility Indianapolis 5
14. Indiana Gas and Chemical Terre Haute 5,13,14,15,16,17
Corporation
15. Inland Steel Company Indiana Harbor 1,5,8,13
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Indiana Harbor 2,5,13,18
16. U.S. Steel Corporation Gary 1,5,6,12,13,17,19
KENTUCKY
17. Allied Chemical Corporation Ashland
2,5,7,13
MARYLAND
18. Bethlehem Steel Corporation Sparrows Point 1,5,13,14,15,16,18
MICHIGAN
19. Allied Chemical Corporation Detroit 5
20. Ford Motor Company Rouge 3,5,13
21. Great Lakes Steel Zug Island 1,5,8,13
Corporation
MINNESOTA
22. Koppers Company, Inc.
St. Paul
273
-------
TABLE XXXII (Continued)
Name
MINNESOTA (Concluded)
23. U.S. Steel Corporation
MISSOURI
24. Great Lakes Carbon
Corporation
Location of
Plant
Duluth
St. Louis
NEW YORK
25. Allied Chemical Corporation Buffalo
Donner-Hanna Coke Corporation Buffalo
26. Bethlehem Steel Corporation Lackawanna
Coal-Chemical
Materials
Produced3./
1,5
2,5,7,13
1,5,8,13
1,5,8,13,18
OHIO
27. Allied Chemical Corporation Ironton
28. Armco Steel Corporation Hamilton
29. Armco Steel Corporation Middletown
30. Diamond Shamrock Corporation Painesville
31. Empire Detroit Steel Portsmouth
Corporation
32. Interlake, Inc. Toledo
33. Republic Steel Corporation Cleveland
34. Republic Steel Corporation Massillon
2,5,7,13
1,5,13
1,5,8,13,14,15,16,
17,18
2,5
5,13
1,5,13,14,15,16
1,5,8,13,14,15,16,17,19
1,5,13
274
-------
TABLE XXXII (Continued)
Name
OHIO (Concluded)
35. Republic Steel Corporation
36. Republic Steel Corporation
37. Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Company
38. U.S. Steel Corporation
Location of
Plant
Warren
Youngtown
Campbell
Lorain
Coal-Chemical
Materials
Produced£/
1,5,13,19
1,5,13,14,15,16,17,19
1,5,13
1,5,13
PENNSYLVANIA
39. Alan Wood Steel Company
40. Bethlehem Steel Corporation
41. Bethlehem Steel Corporation
42. Crucible Steel Corporation
43. Eastern Gas and Fuel
Associates
44. Interlake, Inc.
45. Jones and Laughlin Steel
Corporation
46. Jones and Laughlin Steel
Corporation
47. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
Corporation
48. Shenango, Inc.
U.S. Steel Chemical Company
Swedeland
Bethlehem
Johnstown
Midland
Philadelphia
Erie
Aliquippa
Pittsburgh
Monessen
5,13,14,17
1,5,13,14,15,16,18,19
1,5,7,12,13,17,18
1,5,8,13
5
1,5,8,13,14,15,16,17
1,5,8,13
1,5,8,13
Neville Island 1,5,8,13
Neville Island 6
275
-------
TABLE XXXII (Continued)
Name
PENNSYLVANIA (Concluded)
49. U.S. Steel Corporation
50. U.S. Steel Corporation
Location of
Plant
Clairton
Fairless
Coal-Chemical
Materials
Produced!/
1,5,6,9,10,11,12,13,
14,15,16,17,19,21,22
1,5,8,13,19
TENNESSEE
51. Woodward Iron Company
Chattanooga Division
Alton Park 1,5,13,14,15,16
TEXAS
52. Armco Steel Corporation
53. Lone Star Steel Company
Houston 5,13,14,15,16,18
Daingerfield 1,5,13,14,15,16,17
UTAH
54. U.S. Steel Corporation
Geneva
1,5,13,14,15,16,17
WEST VIRGINIA
55. National Steel Corporation
56. Sharon Steel Corporation
57. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
Corporation
Weirton
Fairmont
East
Steubenville
1,5,7,8,13,18
1,5,8,13
1,5,7,8,12,13
WISCONSIN
58. Milwaukee Solvay Milwaukee
Coke Division Pickands Mather
276
-------
TABLE XXXII (Concluded)
Coal-Chemical
Location of Materials
Name Plant Produced^'
PENNSYLVANIA
59. Carpentertown Coal and Coke Mahoning 5
Company
60. Bortz Coal Company Daugherty 5
61. Ruane Coal and Coke Company Laughead 5
62. Shenango, Inc. Lucerne 5
VIRGINIA
63. Christie Coal and Coke Esserville 5
Company
64. Jewell Smokeless Coal Vansant 5
Corporation
a/ Coal-chemical materials produced at coke plants are designated as
follows:
1 - Ammonium sulfate 12 - Pitch-of-tar
2 - Ammonia liquor (NHo content) 13 - Crude light oil
3 - Diammonium phosphate 14 - Benzene
4 - Monoammonium phosphate 15 - Toluene, all grades
5 - Crude coal tar 16 - Xylene, all grades
6 - Creosote 17 - Solvent naphtha, all grades
7 - Crude chemical oil (tar acid oil) 18 - Intermediate light oil
8 - Sodium phenolate or carbolate 19 - Naphthalene
9 - Phenol 20 - Pyridine
10 - Cresols 21 - Picolines
11 - Cresylic acid 22 - Sulfur
277
-------
Figure 44 - Coke Plants in the United States (1972)
-------
TABLE XXXIII
CREOSOTE PRODUCTION PLANTS IN THE U.S.IZ/
Allied Chemicals Corporation
Detroit, Michigan
Ensely, Alabama
Ironton, Ohio
Koppers Company, Inc.
Cicero (Chicago), Illinois
Follansbee, West Virginia
Fontana, California
Houston, Texas
Portland, Oregon
Kearny (Seaboard), New Jersey
St. Paul, Minnesota
Swedeland, Pennsylvania
Woodward, Alabama
Youngstown, Ohio
Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation
Cleveland, Ohio
Granite City, Illinois
Ironton, (Provo) Utah
Lone Star, Texas
Chattanooga, Tennessee
USS Chemicals
Clairton, Pennsylvania
Fairfield, Alabama
Gary, Indiana
The Western Tar Products Corporation
Memphis, Tennessee
Terre Haute, Indiana
Witco Chemical Corporation
Point Comfort, Texas
Total Annual Production (1972)
Estimated
a/
Plant Capacity-'
(million Ib/vear)
100-200
100-200
100-200
100-200
100-200
200-300
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
100-200
100-200
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
100-300
100-200
100-200
10-20
10-20
10-20
Estimated Annual
ProductionS/
(million Ib)
250-350
350-450
50-100
250-350
20-40
10-20
1,15 OIL/
a/ MRI estimates.
279
-------
Granite
City
Feirfield..B^ely
lone Star* IOU.S.AHA Woodward
Point •
Comfort
Figure 45 - Creosote Production in Plants in the U.S. (1972)
-------
The second concentration of plants is located along the Pacific Coast,
where Douglas fir and western red cedar are the species of primary in-
terest to the industry. About 77% of the United States' plants are
located in these two regions. A distribution of plants by type and loca-
tion is presented in Figure 46.
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
1. Production methods;
a. Coal tar; Coal tar is produced by the carbonization
or coking of coal, i.e., heating the coal at high temperatures (1650-
2150°F) in the absence of air. The major product of this process is coke,
which is used in the production of pig iron. Coke represents about 75% of
the total value of products obtained through coal carbonization. The
major products of the coking process are listed in Table XXXIV.
TABLE XXXIV
PRODUCTS FROM THE CARBONIZATION OF 1 TON OF COAL
Products
Coke 1,300-1,500 Ib
Coal tar 8-10 gal.
Light oil 3 gal.
Ammonia 5-6 Ib
Coal gas 9,500-11,500 ft3
Annual coal tar production in the United States amounts to
over 8.5 billion pounds per year. About 757o of the coal tar (about 6.3
billion pounds) is subjected to distillation, and about 25% of the tar is
ordinarily consumed by the steel industry as fuel. (Because of the energy
shortage, a much larger proportion of coal tar may be used as fuel by the
steel industry.)
b. Creosote: Creosote is produced by the distillation of
coal tar (Figure 47). A number of distillate oils are produced in the
distillation of coal tar (Table XXXV) and creosote is a mixture of these
oils, blended to meet specialized (cf. product description) requirements.
The larger tar distillation operations (100 to 700 tons/
day) employ continuous distillation processes. However, at the present
time, most tar distillation plants employ batch distillation processes,
281
-------
00
N3
DIVISION of FOREST ECONOMICS AND MARKET»*G RESEARCH
WOOD PRESERVING PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES
SOUTHEAST REGION
fc NON-PRESSURE
Figure 46 - Wood Preserving Plants in the United States (1972)Zi/
-------
Coal Light
Gas Ammonia Oil
Carbolic Oil
Naphthalene Oil
Biological Treatment
T
Coal
1 I 1
Coke
Oven
1 650 -2 150° F
lUtru
Coal Tar
sr Products;
t
Distillation
(B.P. 106-
i
Water
f
395° C )
Creosote
Coke
Pitch
Figure 47 - Production and Waste Schematic for Creosote
283
-------
TABLE XXXV
TYPICAL FRACTIONS TAKEN IN CONTINUOUS TAR DISTILLATION^
79/
Fraction No.
1
2
4
5
residue
liquor and
losses
Names
crude benzole,
light oil
naphtha,
carbolic oil,
phenolic oil
heavy naphtha,
carbolic oil,
naphthalene oil
naphthalene oil
wash oil
benzole absorbing
oil, light creosote
creosote
heavy creosote,
heavy oil
medium-soft pitch
Boiling Range
106-107
167-194
203-240
215-254
238-291
271-362
285-395
Weight
Percentage
of Crude Tar
2.4
3.1
9.3
3.5
10.2
11.5
12.1
40.5
7.4
284
-------
(c) Wood preservation: Practically all of the cre'osote
produced in this country is used by commercial organizations for the pre-
servation of wood. A brief description of the wood preservation industry
was presented in Chapter IV of this report.
2. Waste control technology: The most important pollution prob-
lems related to creosote are associated with the wood-treatment processes.
Therefore, major emphasis will be placed on waste control problems
associated with this phase of creosote operations.
a. Waste control technology in the production of coal tar
and creosote: The pollution potential in the production of coal tar is
much greater than it is for the production of creosote. The reason for
this is the fact that creosote production is a distillation process which
is performed essentially within a closed system.
*
An appreciable quantity of water is in coal tar (1-27,, of
the total volume) that is boiled off in the distillation process and is
disposed of along with other process waters. In some of the larger tar
distillation plants, the aqueous wastes are treated in the company's
biological treatment plant. At other plants, the wastes are discharged
to the municipal system. Thus, nearly all effluents receive biological
treatment of some kind.
Apparently, no special types of microorganisms are required
for the treatment of wastewaters containing creosote. However, micro-
organism populations which are subjected to wastewaters of this kind most
probably adapt in order to metabolize the waste. Wastewater treatment
plants at tar distillation facilities are generally not started with muni-
cipal sludges, but are ordinarily started with river water that has been
exposed to this type of material. Thus, the microorganisms are already
partially acclimated to the metabolism of creosote-like materials.
Furthermore, a long startup period generally allows the microorganisms
population to adjust to the metabolism of this type of waste. In order
to maintain continuity in the composition of the waste stream, the aqueous
waste is held in large holding tanks. Industry representatives knew of
no instance in which microorganisms populations have been destroyed by an
excessive quantity of creosote-containing waste materials.
Tar distillation plants have little material to dispose of
other than water; all distillates are sold or burned for fuel, and the
distillation residue, pitch, is also sold. Fume collection systems are
used at locations where hot pitch is loaded into tank cars, and at certain
other areas where fume control is necessary. The materials scrubbed from
the air is recycled. For example, creosote is frequently employed in the
air scrubbing operations, and the absorbed materials remain in the creosote.
285
-------
Highly efficient oil scrubbers of this type are required in order to keep
the pitch fume components at a concentration of less than 0.2 mg/nP, the
OSHA standard. Equipment of this type is not required in the tar unload-
ing operations because the tar is not hot enough to fume. Thus, the pitch
handling operations are the major areas where this type of treatment is
required. Creosote does not have to be very hot in order to be fluid, and
therefore, fume control operations are not required in the handling of
creosote. Creosote is normally handled at 125-150°F, and at this tempera-
ture, would not emit an objectionable amount of fumes.
b. Waste control technology in the preservation of wood
with creosote: Wood preservation processes can be classified as "pressure"
or "nonpressure" processes depending upon whether or not air and/or hydro-
static pressure and vacuum is employed to assist in impregnating the wood
with preservative. Over 807o of wood treatment plants employ pressure pro-
cesses. The various processes are described below and a processing and
waste treatment schematic is presented in Figure 48.
(1) NonpresFure processes: Nonpressure processes
utilize open tanks and either hot or cold preservatives in which the stock
to be treated is immersed. Employment of this process on a commercial
scale to treat timbers and poles with creosote is largely confined to the
Rocky Mountain and Pacific regions, especially the latter. Nonpressure
processes for treating wood with pentachlorophenol are located in Minnesota
as well as in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific regions. Nonpressure processes
for treating lumber and posts with creosote are located primarily in the
East, but pentachlorophenol is used extensively throughout the country for
dip treating in farming and ranching areas, particularly in Missouri,
Texas, Idaho, Montana and South Dakota.
The volume of wastewater originating from nonpressure
processes is small and consists principally of precipitation that enters
the open tanks employed.
(2) Pressure processes: Plants that employ pressure
processes have a more serious pollution problem. Their effluents are
normally characterized by a high phenol content and a high oxygen demand,
the latter due to entrained oils and various extractives, principally
carbohydrates, that are removed from wood during pretreatment "condition-
ing." There are two types of conditioning processes, and their use de-
pends primarily upon the species or wood being treated. The Boulton
process is the predominant conditioning method used at plants which treat
Douglas fir and other westcoast species; open steaming is the predominant
method used with pines and other species native to the East.
286
-------
NON-PRESSURE PROCESS
Wood - L
r ,. ^ On^n TonLr *• Preserved Wood
PRESSURE PROCESSES
STEAM CONDITIONING METHOD BOULTON METHOD
Wood ^ Steam
Conditioning
Steam »• 245<>F) }_}6H
\ i
Creosote—*- Pressure
i , Heat
1
Emulsions
* .
,.
Water Plus Dissolved
ff. Carbohydrates — •
r, from Wood
— •»• Preserved Wood
r
\M, , ,\ ta. Vacuum Conditionin
Wood ^120.220oF
M
Pressure
Creosote »• Heat
Emulsions
i , •
\ r
. - - Separator
— ^- Aqueous Waste
v.oonng water
*" — ^-Aqueous Waste —
Evaporate
^-Preserved Wood
Figure 48 - Production and Waste Schematic for Wood Treatment Processes
-------
Steam conditioning: When it is either impracti-
cable or undesirable to air-season southern pine timber before subjecting
it to pressure treatment, a steaming and vacuum process is often employed
to condition the wood. This involves steaming the timber in the treating
cylinder for several hours, usually at 245°F or less. Following this
treatment a vacuum is drawn on the charge for 1 hr or more. This process
results in some loss of moisture from green timber and apparently has
other effects, not well understood, which cause the wood to take suitable
treatment even though its moisture content is still relatively high.
Partially, or even thoroughly, seasoned material may also be subjected
to such treatment, especially when it is desired to sterilize the wood by
heating. Although its present use is limited mainly to southern pine,
steam and vacuum conditioning is also applicable to some other softwood
species.
The waste stream is composed of both the steam
condensate that forms in the retort and water derived from the wood. The
volume is usually large relative to that for the Boulton process, and the
waste usually has a much higher oxygen demand because of emulsified oils
and dissolved solids. Elimination of discharges from plants of this type
is not practicable. The waste is amenable to conventional wastewater
treating methods, however, and the volume of discharge can be reduced sub-
stantially by in-plant process changes and control techniques.
The Boulton process: West Coast species, such
as the Douglas fir, are conditioned for the same purposes as above by the
Boulton process, in which the wood is heated under vacuum in the preserva-
tive at 180 to 220°F prior to preservative injection. Wastewater consists
only of water removed from the wood, and when the volume is relatively small
(amounting to less than 2,500 gal/day at most plants) it can be reused as
cooling water and disposed of by evaporation. A zero discharge of process
water has already been achieved by many plants that employ the Boulton
method of conditioning. When the wastewater volume is relatively high
(10,000 gal/day or more), as in the Boulton drying of green piling and
poles, treatment methods other than evaporation are required.
Clarification of wastewater: In both types of
pressure processes, creosote must be removed from the wastewater. The
formation of emulsions greatly complicates this separation procedure.
However, much progress has been made recently in solving the emulsion
problem. A few years ago, many wood treatment plants discharged the milky
white emulsions as wastewater. This is apparently rarely done today in
the better plants. The emulsion problem has been solved by a combination
of methods. For example, emulsions are markedly reduced by using low-
speed, high-volume pumps instead of high-speed, low-volume pumps. Emul-
sions have been broken by the use of flocculating agents that are sub-
sequently removed by filtration through sand or by settling.
288
-------
Water-soluble materials cannot be removed by
these procedures; however, phenols are somewhat soluble in water, and un-
treated wastewater may contain 800 to 900 ppm of phenolic material. After
flocculation and sand filtration, an average phenol concentration of 150
ppm can be achieved and 400 ppm maximum concentrations of phenol are ob-
served.
D. Formulation, Packaging and Distribution
1. Formulation: Only about 0.1 to 0.2% of the total amount
of creosote produced is sold to individuals. This product is a special
"crystal free" material, formulated in such a manner that no solid mate-
rials will form when the product is cooled to 40°F.
Most of the "crystal free" creosote is sold to farmers or other
persons who use the product to preserve wood by treating it themselves.
The consumer product can be applied like paint and is considerably more
convenient to use than regular creosote. The "crystal free" product is
sold in truck quantities, but is also packaged in 55-gal. drums and 5-gal.
pails. The product is also repackaged by other companies; apparently the
smallest quantity sold to consumers is a 1-gal. container.
The overwhelming majority of the creosote (> 99%) is sold to
wood preservation plants. The specifications for this product were
presented at the beginning of this case study.
2. Distribution:
a. Coal tar: Coal tar is received by the distilling plant
in barges, tank cars, and tank trucks. Tank trucks are used when the coke
plant is not far away. If the plants are very near, the tar can be piped
from the coking plant to the tar distillation plant.
b. Creosote: Much of the creosote produced is shipped by
barge to storage facilities or "terminals." A large storage facility can
accommodate a million gallons or more, whereas a "small" facility may con-
tain 100,000 gal. Storage facilities are located on or near major river
routes, e.g., at Good Hope, Louisiana; Wilmington, North Carolina; and
Lake Charles, Louisiana. The transfer between barge and storage facility
is accomplished by means of pipelines.
Terminals have dedicated facilities, and contracts are
written to maintain the quality of the product during storage. Terminals
do not package products, but act as agents in the storage and distribution
of creosote.
289
-------
From the storage facility, creosote is transported to the
wood processing plants, mostly by tank cars. Some creosote is directly
transported from the distillation plants to the wood processing plants by
barge, tank car or tank truck.
If allowed to cool during shipment, some of the constituents
of the creosote are deposited as solids. In this case, heating of the
shipping containers is required prior to discharge.
In transit, creosote would contaminate most other products,
except materials such as No. 6 fuel oil. However, creosote itself can
become contaminated with other products, such as oil, to such an extent
that it would not meet AWPA standards. Thus, in the transport of creosote
by barge, tank car or tank truck, certain precautions must be taken; either
the equipment is dedicated or measures are taken to see that the "empty"
container does not contain significant amounts of contaminating material.
Barges are ordinarily owned by barge lines. However, the
barges are not dedicated to creosote movement. Barges are ranked accord-
ing to the extent to which they have become contaminated. A new barge is
used only for relatively valuable materials and eventually becomes dirtier
and dirtier. Finally, it can only be used for such products as creosote
or No. 6 fuel oils or other materials of that kind.
The tank cars and tank trucks which transport creosote are
almost exclusively owned by the coal tar distillers and are dedicated to
the shipment of creosote. When the cars or trucks are emptied, steam is
circulated through heating coils to increase the temperature of the creosote
and allow it to flow at a faster rate. When residues build up, they are
cleaned out at cleaning stations by circulating high temperature steam
through the heating coils, with creosote in the tank. The wash creosote
is recovered and then recycled through the distillation step. Thus, in
the cleaning of these tanks, no polluted water is generated.
E. Use Patterns
Creosote is used almost exclusively for the protection of wood
against attack by fungi, marine borers, or insects. In 1972 almost 275'
million cubic feet of wood was treated with preservative or fire retardant
materials. More than half of this wood was treated with creosote and
creosote-containing mixtures.
Almost 1 billion pounds of creosote were used in these applica-
tions. Creosote and creosote-containing solutions were used almost ex-
clusively in the treatment of railroad ties and marine pilings. More than
one-third of all wood telephone and telegraph poles were treated with creosote,
290
-------
Creosote and creosote-coal tar solutions are also used for the
preservative treatment of fence posts, marine and foundation piling, wood
blocks and timbers for buildings, tanks, bridges, and other structures.
The quantities of wood products treated with creosote in the
U.S. are shown in Table XXXVI. The usual treatment rates are 8 to 11 Ib
of creosote per cubic foot of wood.
A significant quantity of the creosote produced is consumed as
fuel by steel producers. The fuel shortage has resulted in an increase
in the amount of creosote used in this manner. Both coal tar and creosote
can be used as carbon sources in the reduction of iron ore. Industry
sources indicate that as much as half of the creosote produced by dis-
tillers who are also steel producers could be consumed this winter in this
manner.
TABLE XXXVI
WOOD PRODUCTS TREATED WITH CREOSOTE
IN THE UNITED STATEsZi/
Quantity Treated
Wood Product (millions of cubic ft)
Railroad crossties 85.7
Utility poles 26.4
Lumber and timber 12.9
Fence posts 7.3
Marine pilings 13.6
Switch ties 5.9
Cross arms 0.4
Other 2.1
154.3
Most available use figures for creosote provide a geographical
distribution pattern based upon the amounts of creosote consumed at the
wood treatment plant. However, since the ultimate location of the creosote
is of interest, an estimate was made on this project of the quantity of
preserved wood used in each region. This estimate was based upon AWPA
figures and two assumptions: (1) that the amount of creosote used in
railroad ties is proportional to the railroad mileage; and (2) that the
amount of creosote used in utility poles was proportional to the popula-
tion. The estimated distribution for creosote is presented below:
291
-------
Estimated distribution: (All figures in millions of pounds AI per year,
1972).
U.S. Production Imports Exports Domestic Consumption
990 160 -- 972 Wood preservation
_ 178 Burned as fuel
1,150 Total
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Industrial, Government Home and
Agricultural Commercial Agencies Garden Totals
NE 0.5 165
SE 0.3 145
NC 0.6 300
SC 0.3 185
NW 90
SW °'3 85
Totals 2.0 970 Negligible Negligible 972
A materials flow diagram for creosote is shown in Figure 49.
F. Alternatives
Creosoted wood in ground contact has at least five times the
useful life of wood. Wood, because of its strength, resilience, mechani-
cal wearing ability and economy, is an ideal product to use for cross
ties, utility poles, pole-type building structures, highway guard posts
and fence posts. The use of untreated wood for these purposes would re-
sult in excessive use of forest lands and greatly increased labor and re-
placement costs.
Creosote's main competitor in the wood preservation market is
pentachlorophenol. Penta has encountered wide success in the treatment
of utility poles and could possibly be used in treating crossties, except
for two considerations.
One is engineering tradition, which is not known for swiftness
of change. Creosote has time on its side.
292
-------
~*'x i ^">7v" •»
, 0/?f&
Northwest '
— i
UTAH 1
v—/r~77:;,
Dxu*o j^ __ '"lowiNt:
/COLORADr
/
Creosote
1972 Estimated:
- U.S. Production
- Imports
- Exports
-U.S. Supply
- Wood Preservation '
- Non-Pesticide Uses
Millions* •*•—•
Lbs. AI
990.0
160.0
None
1,150.0
97210
178.0
I/ Distribution shown by
location of creosote-treated
wood.
160
Imports
u \
'V, A -*\
r\
%
Figure 49 - Materials Flow Diagram for Creosote, 1972
-------
The second—and most important—is that creosote permeates the
wood fibers and has a lubricating effect on the crossties, which aids in
preventing their ends from "brooming out." In the eyes of the railroads,
a "broomed out" crosstie is worthless,-—-'
Penta, on the other hand, is said to preserve crossties by
forming an encrustation on their surface and reportedly does not exert
an appreciable lubricating effect, according to creosote suppliers.
Creosote is not as desirable as pentachlorophenol in the treat-
ment of utility poles because creosote treatment leaves the poles "dirty"
and soils linemen's clothes. Some wood treated with penta can also be
painted (depending on the type of petroleum carrier used), whereas creosote
treated wood cannot.
Preserved wood products also face continuing; competition from
nonwood products. As in most such situations, there are advantages and
disadvantages to each product in addition to price differentials. However,
prices of wood products are strongly influenced by the prices of substitute
products and tend to be set slightly below the substitute if there is
strong competition.
Table XXXVII lists some of the preserved wood products and
their potential substitutes„ There is more competition for some uses than
in others. Wood piling, for example, is only used for loads up to 50 tons.
In some applications, such as building shingles, the aesthetic qualtiy of
the wood makes it a premium product which can be sold above the price of
competitive products.
TABLE XXXVII
PRESERVED WOOD PRODUCTS AND THEIR SUBSTITUTES^!/
Preserved Wood Product
Piling In-place concrete
Driven concrete
Steel piling
Hollov; I beams
Marine piling In-place concrete
Driven concrete
Interlocking iron
sheets
2 x 4's, etc. Metal tubing
Plywood Concrete
Cinder block
Fire-retardant lumber, plywood, etc. Asbestos
Metal sheets
Poles Metal tubing
2QA Precast concrete
-------
G. Environmental Impact Potential
1. Hazards to humans:* Creosote vapors cause eye and nose
irritation. Liquid creosote is a primary skin irritant, but is not an
eye irritant. The irritation thresholds for eyes, nose and throat have
not been determined. Photosensitization has been reported. Fair skin
men are reportedly sensitive to creosote (vapors or liquid not specified)
while dark skin workers show remarkable resistance.
Cutaneous carcinomas are reported to involve hands, forearms,
scrotum, face, neck and penis. Available information on such cases indi-
cates gross contact of skin and clothing, minimal protective measures and
minimal personal hygiene.
An authoritative textl^.' makes the following statement concerning
the hazards of creosote to humans.
"Workmen sometimes object to handling the treated wood, as the
preservative soils their clothes and in some cases may burn the skin of
the face and hands, causing injury similar to sunburn,, Creosoted timber
has no other apparent effects on the health of people working with or near
it, nor is it in any way injurious to the occupants of buildings in which
such treated material has been used. With regard to the health fact*r,
it may be pointed out that creosoted wood-stave pipe is successfully used
in some localities for conducting drinking water to cities."2ft/
2. Mammalian toxicity: Recent studies^.' of mammalian toxicity
of creosote are summarized below.
a. Based on mortality during a 14-day post-exposure period,
the single oral dose LDjg was estimated to be 1.7 gm/kg body weight
(albino rats). Creosote is, therefore, classified as a toxic substance,
but the magnitude of this toxicity is low. This LD^g would be approxi-
mately equivalent to a 4 oz dose for a 150-lb man. Furthermore the oral
LDjjQ of sodium chloride for rats is 3.0 gm/kg, so that creosote is
roughly about twice as toxic as table salt.
b. The single dose skin penetration LDcQ of creosote on albino
rabbits is greater than 7.95 gm/kg body weight. Thus, creosote is defined
as being a relatively low toxic substance for the skin penetration test.
c. Creosote was put into the eyes of male albino rabbits, and
it was judged not to be classified as an eye irritant.
* Source: Koppers Company, personal communication, 1973.
295
-------
d. Creosote was placed on the abraded skin areas of male albino
rabbits for a maximum period of 24 hr. Severe epidermal flaking occurred;
thus, the material is defined as a primary skin irritant.
e. Near-saturated vapors of creosote were provided for the
inhalation exporure to a group of albino rats. The results indicated that
creosote is believed to have a low order of toxicity. It does not fall
within the "toxic" or "highly toxic" substances definition.
Some references to the possible carcinogenic nature of creosote
have been reported in the literature. A study with mice indicated that
skin cancers were recognized as being caused by creosote, and lung cancer
was suspected to be.—' Another study concluded, however, that "the basic
fraction of creosote oil was found to be noncarcinogenic for mouse skin."—'
Another study was recently conducted by NIOSH on the effect of
coal tar pitch volatiles on four species of rats, hamsters, rabbits and two
species of mice. The coal tar was atomized into an air stream and into
cages at 0.2, 2.0, 10.0 and 20.0 mg/m^. The animals were continuously
exposed, 24 hr/day for 90 days. Post observations were then made for
15 months. Only mice at the 10 and 20 mg level showed signs of skin
effects. These two higher exposure levels are massive--something like
a shower. On sacrificing the rats, no instances were found of lung,
bladder or kidney tumors.2^'
3. Hazards to the environment: The limited data available at
the present time indicate that the hazards of creosote to the environment
are minimal.
There is a major difference between the use of creosote and most
other pesticides; creosote is not sprayed or widely distributed for the
purpose of killing pests over a wide area; creosote is impregnated into
wood, and there are strong indications that it remains within the wood
over long periods of time. For example, a 1972 study^iZ/ determined that,
during a 40-year period, the retention of creosote in Douglas fir marine
piling did not change significantly. Another study<3§/ reported, in 1964,
that the loss of polycyclic aromatic compounds from creosote-treated
utility poles is not a significant form of air pollution; the pine forests
contribute far more pollutants in the form of hydrocarbons than do creosote
wood products.
A very recent paper has explored the environmental hazards of
creosote in greater detail. Acute toxicity data have been determined for
certain birds and fish, and these data are reproduced in Table XXXVIII.
The data inspired the following comment concerning the hazard of creosote
to the environment:
296
-------
"If creosote, after being used for over 100 years, was such an
extremely hazardous material, there would be recorded somewhere many
instances of its detrimental effects on domestic animals, humans and wild-
life. But these harmful effects have not occurred. In fact, as shown by
the bird and fish data, creosote is low to moderate in toxicity."—'
TABLE XXXVIII
ACUTE TOXICITY DATA FOR AVIAN SPECIES AND FISH SPECIES
FOR CREOSOTE-COAL TAR SOLUTION (60/40)
AND SEVERAL INSECTICIDES§2/
Species
Bobwhite quail
8-Day Dietary
(ppm)
1,261
38
Preservative and
Insecticide Compounds
Creosote-coal tar
(60/40)
Dieldrin
Mallard duck
10,388
164
Creosote-coal tar
(60/40)
Dieldrin
Species
Bluegills
Static Fish Bioassay-96 Hr
Nominal Water Concentration
TL50 (ppb)
990
8
103
Preservative and
Insecticide Compounds
Creosote-coal tar
(60/40)
DDT
Malathion
Rainbow Trout
880
7
170
Creosote-coal tar
(60/40)
DDT
Malathion
297
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 21. MANEB
A. Product Description
Chemical Name; Manganese Ethylenebisdithiocarbamate
Trade Names: Chloroble M, Dithane M-22, Dithane M-22 Special, Kypman 80,
Maneba, Manebgan, Manesan, Manzate, Manzate D, Sopranebe,
Trimangol, Vancide, Maneb 80
Pesticide Class: Fungicide
Properties; Yellow crystals, decomposes on heating; Sparingly soluble in
water; insoluble in most organic solvents
B. Manufacturers
Estimated 1972-/
Name Plant Location Plant Capacity Production
Rohm and Haas Company Philadelphia, 20-25 million Ib 7 million Ib
Pennsylvania (Estimated total
dithiocarbamates)
E. I. duPont de La Porte, Texas 15-20 million Ib 5 million Ib
Nemours and Company, (Estimated total
Inc. dithiocarbamates)
&l Maneb and maneb plus zinc sait, but excluding mancozeb (see text).
Maneb production is unusually difficult to estimate and a few
comments are needed to explain the basis of our estimates. Maneb was in-
troduced in 1950 by Du Pont under the name Manzate® and was soon produced
(under license) by Rohm and Haas under the name Dithane M-22. Maneb was
produced by mixing at high concentrations a water-soluble manganese salt
with a soluble ethylenebisdithiocarbamate salt, recovering the insoluble
product* and then drying it. The original maneb had relatively poor shelf
life and both companies developed products that contained a zinc salt
At low concentrations of reactants a soluble form of maneb is obtained
which is believed to be a cyclic, monomeric molecular form, compared to
a linear, polymeric from for the insoluble maneb.
298
-------
(apparently the sulfate) as a stabilizer, i.e., Manzate D and Dithane M-22
Special. Both tnaneb and maneb with the zinc salt were marketed primarily as
80% wettable powder stated to contain 16.5% manganese, i.e., the zinc was
included with the 20% inert ingredient. Maneb is, in fact, generally for-
mulated with a higher content of AI (e.g., 877«) to allow for instability
losses in storage.
In 1961 Rohm and Haas introduced an improved product which they
described as a complex metal salt—a coordination compound—of maneb.
Made by mixing an aqueous slurry of maneb and a soluble zinc salt and then
drying the mixture, this product was marketed by Rohm and Haas under the
trade name Dithane M-45 and then (under license) by DuPont under the name
Manzate 200. Subsequently, very similar if not identical products were
marketed in Europe, Canada and elsewhere under the common name "mancozeb."
Rohm and Haas had obtained approval of the use of this common name for the
active ingredient in Dithane M-45 from the ISO (International Organization
for Standards), but has never received approval for its use in the U.S.
Some confusion exists over the nature of mancozeb. Dithane M-45
and Manzate 200 are marketed as 80% WP stated to contain 16% manganese and
2% zinc. By difference, the ethylenebisdithiocarbamate (EDC) would there-
fore make up about 62% of the product and the atomic ratio would be Mni QQ,
^nO 10' EDC^ Q^. Martin's Pesticide Manual reports a somewhat different
composition for mancozeb, i.e., 20% Mn, 2.5% Zn. In either case, the zinc
is not present in the stoichiometric amount normally present in a coor-
dination compound. The structure has been postulated to be a linear polymer
form of maneb in which about 6% of the units contain zinc, but Melnikov's
Chemistry of Pesticides simply calls mancozeb a mixture of maneb and zineb*,
which is apparently inconsistent with U.S. practice.
At any rate, products of the mancozeb type (i.e., Dithane M-45,
etc.) have improved stability compared to the older maneb formulations,
while providing essentially the same fungal control. They are growing in
importance, replacing much of the previous uses of maneb and zineb, and may
by now (1974) be the most widely used member of the dithiocarbamate family,
worldwide, according to an industry source. The U.S. production of the
mancozeb type product is, however, difficult to estimate; the Tariff Com-
mission does not even list it as a product, although both maneb and zineb
are listed.
* Zinc ethylenebisdithiocarbamate.
299
-------
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
The reaction chemistry for maneb production is believed to be
approximately as shown below; based on discussions with the manufacturers,
2CS
2
Carbon
Ethylenediamine Disulfide
2NaOH
S
CH2NHCSNa
CH NHCSNa
S
Nabam
+ 2H 0
2
S
IH NHCSNa
2
JH NHCSNa
S
Nabam
+ MnoU. J
4
Manganese
Sulfate
S S
11 '1
-MnSCNHC2H4NHCS-
Maneb
Sodium
Sulfate
A production and waste control schematic for maneb is shown
in Figure 50.
Rohm and Haas produces maneb in Northeast Philadelphia. Raw
materials include carbon disulfide, ethylenediamine and sodium hydroxide
(50%). These are reacted in stainless-steel, cooled units. The exothermic
reaction is controlled by the feed rate and excess carbon disulfide is
distilled out. The sodium hydroxide addition controls pH. The resulting
concentrated nabam solution is reacted (within 24 hr) with manganese sul-
fate, and the desired manganese ethylenebisdithiocarbamate is precipitated.
The slurry is washed with water to remove sodium sulfate and dried to less
than 170 water content. Process by-products include sodium sulfate and
small amounts of carbon disulfide and sodium hydroxide.
Origin of the process raw materials is as follows: manganese
sulfate is a by-product of the manufacture of hydroquinone. It is received
in powder form by hopper cars from Kingsport, Tennessee., or as a liquid
solution from Kingsport or Baltimore, Maryland. The manganese sulfate is
conveyed from the hopper car by means of an air system (micropulsator).
The hopper car unloading area must be well ventilated, and the evacuated
air is passed through dust collectors. Ethylene diamine is received by tank
car from Texas City or Freeport, Texas. Carbon disulfide is received by
tank car from Delaware City, or from Natrium or South Charleston, West Virginia.
Sodium hydroxide is received by rail from Freeport, Texas; Natrium, West
Virginia; or Baltimore, Maryland.
300
-------
co
o
Ethylaminediamine-
CS2-
NaOH-
.Sulfidic
Wastes
MnSO4-
H2O-
.Sulfidic
'Wastes
•Air
Caustic
Scrubber
Solids
Approved
Land Fill
To Municipal
• Sewage Treatment
Plant
Vent
•Discharge
Maneb
Figure 50 - Production and Waste Schematic for Maneb
-------
Pollution abatement problems and procedures are as follows. Air
emissions are controlled by cyclone collectors, bag filters, and scrubbers.
A small amount of hydrogen sulfide is given off in the reaction; this is
collected from process vents and passed through caustic (57o) scrubbers
before release to the atmosphere. Emissions from the drying step are also
controlled. A cyclone collector, bag filter and scrubber are used to re-
move particulates from the air. The final packaging operation is dusty;
this area must be well ventilated and the airstream is passed through bag
filters before release. About 2% of the total weight: of product is lost as
solids. Solid wastes (broken bags, sweepings, solids collected in the
dust collectors, etc.) are discharged at an approved dump site in a Phila-
delphia suburb (outside the city limits) or on the New Jersey side. None
of the solid waste, including spillage from broken bags, is recovered.
The liquid waste stream contains primarily salts, about 9 Ib per
13 Ib of Maneb produced. The salts are mostly sodium sulfate, with some
manganese sulfate and certain by-products, such as sodium trithiocarbamate,
formed by the reaction of carbon disulfide with sodium hydroxide. The
liquid stream goes untreated to a large city sewage treatment plant. Rohm
and Haas (and other chemical plants in the vicinity) have an agreement with
the city under which they can discharge their effluent to this plant for
treatment. Thus, the Rohm and Haas plant does not have separate waste treat-
ment facilities and does not require any discharge permits other than agree-
ment from the city to accept their waste streams. The waste stream going
to the city treatment plant must contain less than 1T4 solids. Non-conta-
minated cooling water is monitored and discharged directly to the river.
Waste treatment methods employed by Rohm arid Haas in the maneb
process do not include incineration (sulfur dioxide and manganese would
create air pollution problems), evaporation, deep-well disposal (The salts
would tend to clog the deep well) or sea dumping.
Maneb is also manufactured by Du Pont at the LaPorte, Texas, plant.
Raw materials come primarily from near-by sources by tank car. Du Pont did
not provide any information on the nature of the process. Processing wastes
go to waste treatment systems which are common to all units at the LaPorte
site. These systems include deep-well disposal, incineration, flares, two
biological treatment systems, and barging to sea.
D. Formulation. Packaging, and Distribution
Rohm and Haas markets maneb with a declared formulation of 80% AI,
but which usually has 87% AI initially to compensate for AI lost during
storage. Dispersing agents, nongreasing agents, stabilizers and other
adjuvants are added to the technical product. Maneb has a shelf life of 2
years if packaged in foil, waterproofed containers.
302
-------
Packaging is in 1 kg or 3-, 4-1/2, 20-, or 50-Ib bags or in 50,
55, or 250 Ib fiber pack drums. The bags and drums are shipped by truck,
rail, or containerized. There are no bulk shipments. Exports, which have
to compete against many sources of overseas production, leave the U.S. at
New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore or from West Coast ports.
The geographic use pattern for all carbamate fungicides was esti-
mated by Rohm and Haas as follows: Eastern U.S., 30%; Southeast, 21%; Mid-
weat, 28%; South, 8%; and West, 13%.
DuPont also formulates its technical AI into an 80% WP. Zinc is
added to some formulations such as Manzate D and Manzate 200. The tnaneb
wettable powder is packaged in fiber drums or paper bags. These are
shipped by rail or by truck.
E. Use Patterns
General
Action
Target ;
Diseases
Maneb is a leading product in a group of dithiocarbamate
compounds whose fungicidal efficacy was discovered and has
been commercially exploited since the 1930's. Several U.S.
and European chemical companies have been active in this
field. The market shares of the present-day dithiocarbamate
fungicides (primarily metal salts of ethylene bisdithiocarbamates)
reflect not only the inherent fungicidal potentials of the
chemicals, but also the extent of development and marketing
efforts by the chemical companies involved, as influenced by
their respective patent positions. Maneb is rather unstable.
Zinc is added to many maneb formulations to increase stability.
Maneb is a relatively inexpensive fungicide.
Contact fungicide, broad spectrum. Protective (not curative)
action. No systemic activity. Mechanism of action not fully
understood.
Potatoes, tomatoes, other vegetable crops; apples and other
fruit and nut crops; turf grasses, especially Merion blue-
grass ; wheat and other small grains (seed treatment).
Late blight; early blight; anthracnose; Septoria leaf spot;
gray leaf spot; scab; cedar apple rust; downy mildew; bunt;
damping-off; Helminthosporium, other fungus diseases.
303
-------
Applica- : Foliar spray (or dust) treatments, mostly by ground equipment.
tion Seed treatment.
Rates of : 1-2.4 Ib Al/acre; up to 5 Ib Al/acre for some uses.
Applica- 1.2-1.6 Ib AI/100 gal., 2 oz AI/bushel for seed treatment.
tion
Frequency : 3-8, up to 15 foliar applications per growing season. Seed
treatments: once per season.
Time of : Seed treatments prior to planting; foliar treatments through-
Application out the growing season.
Estimated
Distribution
U.S. Production
12.0
(All figures in millions of pounds AI per year, 1972).
Imports
0.1
Exports
4.5
Domestic Consumption
7.6
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Region
NE
SE
NC
SC
W
Industrial, Government
Agricultural Commercial Agencies
1.8
1.5
1.5 Negl. Negl.
0.3
0.9
Home and
Garden Totals
Totals
6.0
Negl,
Negl.
1.6
7.6
A Materials flow diagram for maneb is shown in Figure 51.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals : Other dithiocarbamate fungicides (including zineb, mancozeb;
metiram, and others); other organic and some inorganic fungi-
cides .
Nonchemical : There are no specific, practical, nonchemical alternatives
for control of the plant diseases controlled by these fungi-
cides .
304
-------
o
U1
Maneb Millions
1972 Estimated: Lbs. AI
- U.S. Production 12.0
- Imports 0. 1
- Exports 4.. S
- U.S. Supply 7.6
Figure 51 - Materials Flo* Diagram for Maneb, 1972
-------
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian
Toxicity
Nontarget
Organisms
Environment
The oral acute H>50 of maneb to rats is over 5,000 rag/kg,
placing it into the "relatively nontoxic" category by this
criterion. No data are available on the acute dermal or in-
halation toxicity of maneb. Maneb may cause slight to
moderate irritation of eyes, nose, throat, and skin. The
signal word "caution" is required for labels of the 80%
wettable powder formulations, the most commonly used com-
mercial form of maneb.
In chronic toxicity studies, the no-effect level was 250
ppm in the diet of rats in a 2-year study, 80 ppm in the
diet of dogs in a 1-year study. Tolerances for residues of
maneb have been established for many crops, ranging from
0.1-45.0 ppm. 4.0-10.0 ppm for most crops.
Ethylene thiourea (ETU) is a metabolite of maneb and occurs in
varying amounts as an impurity in formulated products. This
chemical is considered a "secondary carcinogen." It stimulates
the pituitary to produce thyroid stimulating hormone that may
cause thyroid hyperplasia which may turn malignant. In 2-
year chronic feeding studies with maneb, thyroid hyperplasia
was the predominant adverse sympton. Its severity was clearly
dose related. There appears to be a no-effect level below
which ETU does not result in thyroid hyperplasia.
Maneb is moderately toxic to fishes, relatively nontoxic to
birds and wild mammals. No data are available on its toxicity
to lower aquatic organisms of soil organisms, or on its pos-
sible buildup in food chains. In view of its instability,
the latter is not likely to occur.
Maneb is quite instable. No experimental data are available
on the routes and rates of its degradation in the environment
after application. It is not persistent on treated plants or
in the soil. Maneb does not volatilize from treated surfaces
to any significant extent. It may leach from soils, but it
is primarily applied to plant foliage and is not likely to
penetrate into soil profiles in large enough quantities for
leaching to become a problem. Its physical and chemical
properties make it very unlikely that significant quantities
of maneb could pollute the environment away from target areas.
In treated areas, degradation appears to occur rapidly.
306
-------
Evaluation : Maneb irritates mucuous membranes. Hie question of possible
adverse health effects from ethylene thiourea (ETU), a
metabolite of maneb, is not finally resolved at this time.
Maneb decomposition in storage may result in the generation of
flammable vapors. Aside from these provisos, there are no
indications of serious hazards to human health or to terrestrial
ecosystems outside of target areas from the use of maneb as a
fungicide.
Maneb is toxic to fish. Its toxicity to lower aquatic
organisms is not known. However, it is unlikely that maneb
residues will get into waterways in sufficient concentra-
tions to harm aquatic organisms, except through gross
negligence or misuse.
307
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 22. PENTACHLOROPHENOL
A. Product Description
Chemical Name; Pentachlorophenol (also called penta and PCP)
Trade Names; Dowicide 7, Santophen, Pentachlorol, Sinituho, Weedone
(Dowicide G and Santobri'^e are names of sodium pentachloro-
phenate.)
Pesticide Class; Wood preservative, contact herbicide, molluscicide
Properties: Buff color crystals; melting point > 178°C (technical), 191CC (anhy-
drous). Soluble in ethanol and methanol, slightly soluble in
aliphatic hydrocarbon solvents.
B. Manufacturers
Name
Dow Chem. U.S.A
Monsanto Co.
Monsanto Indust.
Chems. Co.
Reichhold Chems., Inc.
Vulcan Materials Co.
Chems. Div.
Plant Location Plant Capacity
Midland, Mich. 18 million Ib
Sauget, 111.
Tacoma, Wash.
Wichita, Kans.
Total
26 million Ib
12 million Ib
14 million Ib
70 million Ib
Estimated 1972
Production
12 million Ib
18 million Ib
8 million Ib
12 million Ib
50 million Ib
The production figures include the production of the sodium salt
of PCP. Dow was the major producer of the sodium salt Ln 1972 and Monsanto
apparently bought its sodium salt from Dow. Reichhold produces the salt also,
but Vulcan does not. The total 1972 production figure is based on Tariff
Commission data, but industry sources estimate total production as high as
56 million pounds.
C. Production Methods and Waste Treatment Technology
The production of pentachlorophenol by the chlorination of phenol*
has been described in considerable detail.22.' The reaction chemistry is shown
below, and a production and waste schematic is shown in Figure 52.
* Industry sources agree that PCP was never produced in the U.S. by the
hydrolysis of hexachlorobenzene.
308
-------
Phenol
Chlorine
Aluminum
Chloride
(Catalyst)
Pentachlorophenol
Recycle to
Chlorine
Plant
Figure 52 - Production and Waste Schematic for Pentachlorophenol
309
-------
+ 5C1
Phenol temperature
2 Elevated
90/
Some general comments— on the process follow.
The chlorination is performed at substantially atmospheric pres-
sure. The temperature of the phenol in the primary reactor at the start is
in the range of 65-130°C (preferably 105°C) and is held in this range until
the melting point of the product reaches 95°C. About three to four atoms
of chlorine are combined at this pux^.. ., aid the temperature is progressively
increased to maintain a temperature of about 10°C over the product melting
point, until the reaction is completed in 5-15 hr. The mixture is a liquid,
and a solvent is not required, but the catalyst concentration is critical;
about 0.0075 mol of anhydrous aluminum chloride is usually used per mol of
phenol.
The off-gas from the chlorination reactor (largely HC1 during the
initial reaction and chlorine near the conclusion) is sent to a scrubber-
reactor system containing excess phenol. It is held at: a temperature such
that the chlorine is almost completely reacted to give the lower chlori-
nated phenols, which may be either separated, purified and sold, or returned
to be used as the primary pentachlorophenol reactor. The residual gas is
substantially pure HCl.
Dow produces PCP at Midland only. They make phenol from benzene
(via monochlorobenzene), but this method of making phenol is being generally
replaced by the cumene oxidation process. Monsanto also makes both the phe-
nol and chlorine, while Vulcan makes the chlorine, but purchases the phenol,
and Reichold makes the phenol, but purchases the chlorine.
Dow makes PCP with dedicated equipment, and recycles the HCl in
the process. The PCP contains about 10% tetrachlorophenol, but Dow claims
no hexachlorobenzene is formed in their process.
Monsanto's PCP also contains about 10% tetrachlorophenol. Monsanto
generates its own chlorine and produces phenol in its Gulf Coast plant. The
by-product HCl is recovered as muriatic acid. Monsanto also has no problem
with formation of hexachlorobenzene.
310
-------
The commercial products are contaminated with various amounts of
other chlorinated phenols and chlorinated dioxins. Dow has recently com-
mercialized a product manufactured to minimize the dioxin content; it has
the following composition:
Pentachlorophenol 887»
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 12%
Chlorinated dioxins
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 30 ppm, max.
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 1 ppm, max.
However, some commercial products have contained up to 2,500 ppm of the
octachlorodioxin and up to 27 ppm of the hexachlorodioxins. (The effects
of these contaminants on toxicity are discussed in a subsequent portion of
this case study.
D. Formulation and Distribution
Pentachlorophenol is available as a formulated product to be applied
with a hydrocarbon diluent or as an emulsifiable solution.
Solution concentrates are designed for use in formulating ready-
to-use products by manufacturers; and for use by large consumers. PCP is
usually applied to wood products after dilution to a 570 solution with sol-
vents such as mineral spirits, No. 2 fuel oil or kerosene. Liquid petroleum
gas (LPG) and methylene chloride are also sometimes used as solvents. The
energy crisis may cut into the availability of diluent oils.
Dow does not formulate any PCP products, but ships to buyers for
formulation. The PCP in prilled form is shipped in fiber drums, 100-lb
bags and 2,000-lb containers. Most shipments are made by truck, but some
shipments are made in sealed hopper cars leased from the railroad. (Dow
representatives were not sure who cleaned the cars.)
PCP is sold by Monsanto in 50-lb bags, by bulk (in prill form),
and in 1/2 or 1-ton blocks with a metal hook cast in the center (the blocks
are used to make batches of oil-PGP, since it is not sold as a solution).
The sodium salt is sold in 50-lb bags and 200-lb fiber-pack drums, both of
which are nonreturnable and combustible.
Bags and solid blocks are shipped from Monsanto in trucks and
freight cars. Bulk shipments from Monsanto are by hopper truck and hopper
cars. It is the responsibility of the railroad or trucking company to deliver
a clean car; the cleaning procedure utilized was unknown to Monsanto.
311
-------
Most of the PCP sold by Vulcan Materials Company is 96-9770 prill
or flake material. About half of this is shipped to wood preservation plants
in special 20-ton bulk trailer containers that can be unloaded by air pressure
(self-contained pressure source).
Reichhold also manufactures PCP in prilled form and packages the
product in 50-Ib bags. They also ship bulk prills. Re-ichhold also produces
1/2- and 1-ton blocks.
E. Use Patterns
Most of the pentachlorophenol produced in the U.S. is used for the
preservation of wood; about 38 million Ib, or 78% of total production, goes
directly to wood preservation plants.
About 17% (about 8.5 million Ib) of the total amount of PCP pro-
duced is converted to the sodium salt.
Pentachlorophenol was formerly widely used as a herbicide, although
frequently in combination with other herbicides such as 2,4-D, bromacil, or
one of the triazines. This usage has apparently decreased substantially in
recent years and current herbicide use is probably down to 1 million Ib/year
from a recent high of 18 million Ib/year. About 1.5 million Ib of PCP is
used in home and garden applications.
These consumption patterns for pentachlorophenol are summarized
in Table XXXIX, and the various uses are discussed below.
Wood preservation; The major use for pentachlorophenol is in the
preservation of wood. The wood preservation industry was described briefly
in Chapter IV of this report, and in Case Study No. 20 on creosote. Wood is
treated with PCP mostly by using a pressure application method. (For details,
see the case study on creosote.) Utility poles, the major PCP-treated wood
product, are treated with PCP (rather than creosote) to keep their appearance
pleasing. About 0.5 Ib of PCP is required for each cubic foot of wood preserved,
Table XL presents MRI estimates of the amounts of PCP used at wood
preservation plants in various regions of the U.S.
We have made additional estimates of the geographical use distri-
bution of PCP used in wood preservation. These estimates are based on the
fact that 97% of the PCP used in wood preservation is used for: (a) utility
poles and crossarms (62%); and (b) lumber, timber, and fence posts (35%).
(See Table X in the section of this report dealing with the wood preserva-
tion industry.) We have assumed that the use of these materials is propor-
tional to the population of each region. The resulting estimates of the
ultimate location of PCP-treated wood are also presented in Table XL.
312
-------
TABLE XXXIX
U.S. CONSUMPTION OF PENTACHLOROPHENOL*/
Quantity Consumed
Application (millions of Ib/year) Percent
Wood Preservation, 38 78
Commercial
Sodium Salt 6 12
(many uses, see text)
Plywood and Fiberboard 3 6
Waterproofing
Home and Garden Applications 1.5 3
(mostly termite treatment)
Herbicide 0.5 1
TOTAL 49.0 100
a/ Source: MRI Estimates.
TABLE XL
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL USE DISTRIBUTION FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL^
(All figures in millions of Ib Al/year, 1972)
PCP Used by Wood Preser- Ultimate Location of
PCP-Treated Wood
11
SC 14.0 6
W 9.0 6
TOTAL 38.0 38.0
Region
NE
NC
SE
vation Plants
0.4
3.6
11.0
a/ Source: MRI Estimates.
313
-------
Waste treatment technology in wood preservation with pentachloro-
phenol; Some of the general procedures and some of the major waste treat-
ment problems encountered in the preservation of wood were described in the
Case Study No. 20 on creosote.
Wood preservation procedures are similar whether the wood is
being treated with pentachlorophenol or creosote and, thus, the problems
generally are of the same kind.
91/
In a recent report,— the characteristics of a typical waste-
water were presented:
TABLE XLI
TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTEWATER FROM A WOOD PRESERVATION
PLANT USING PENTACHLOROPHENOL
Concentration
Constituent (mg/l)
Total solids 640
Suspended solids 180
COD 1,300
Reducing sugars 68
Chlorophenols
(penta and tetra) 23
In a "fairly strong" wastewater. the concentration of pentachloro-
phenol can be as high as 100 mg/liter.il/ Pentachlorophenol is very diffi-
cult to degrade by biological treatment.217
Sodium salt of pentachlorophenol: The sodium salt of pentachloro-
phenol has literally hundreds of uses; it is widely used geographically. It
is a wide-spectrum fungicide and bactericide. About one-third of the sodium
salt is used for the treatment of sap stain (a fungicidal growth which
causes discoloration) in freshly sawed logs and unseasoned wood. One-third
is used in the production of pressed board and insulation board, and the
remaining one-third is used to inhibit algae and fungi in air-conditioning
cooling towers. In this application, the water must be "slug-treated" peri-
odically, because about 75% of the PCP degrades in water in 24 hr; continu-
ous treatment would be prohibitively expensive.
314
-------
Estimated : (All figures in millions of Ib Al/year, 1972)
Distribution
U.S. Production Imports Exports
49.7 0 0.7
Domestic Consumption
49.0
Region
NE
SE
NC
SC
W
Totals
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Industrial, Government Home and
Agricultural Commercial Agencies Garden
11.0
7.5
13.5
7.5
8.0
Negl.
Totals
47.5
Negl.
1.5
49.0
A materials flow diagram for pentachlorophenol is shown in Figure 53.
F. Alternatives
A discussion of the alternatives to pentachlorophenol in the pres-
ervation of wood is presented in the case study for creosote.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
1. Hazards to humans
a. Eyes; Pentachlorophenol is capable of causing conjunc-
tival redness, iritis, and slight corneal injury. Prompt flushing of con-
taminated eyes will lessen the degree of injury.
b. Skin; A single, prolonged skin contact with the product
may cause slight redness and swelling. Repeated prolonged contact may re-
sult in a chemical burn. PCP is not absorbed through the skin in acutely
toxic amounts. However, the product, in solution, may be absorbed through
the skin in acutely toxic amounts depending upon the solvent and the concen-
tration.
315
-------
13.5 '.
Central \ \
0.7
Export
Pentachlorophenol
1972 Estimated:
- U.S. Production
- Imports
- Exports
- U.S. Supply
- Wood Preservation '
- Other Pesticide Uses
\
\
38.0
11.0
I/ Distribution shown by
location of PCP-treated wood.
Y• Production plant
Figure 53 - Materials Flow Diagram for Pentachlorophenol
-------
c. Inhalation: Dusts are very irritating to upper respira-
tory tract and eyes.
2. Mammalian toxicity;
a. Acute toxicitv;
LD50 values (oral): Guinea pigs - 50-140 mg/kg
Rats - 27-80 mg/kg
Minimum lethal dose (LD10Q): Rabbits - 70-130 mg/kg
b. Subacute toxicity:
Rats - 18-20 days - 5% solution by intubation: 100 mg/kg
slight liver and kidney injury.
Rabbits - 15 days - same method as rats: 35 mg/kg -
gradual weight loss due to poor food intake.
c. Chronic toxicity:
Rats - 26 weeks: 5 mg/day - no ill effects other than
poor weight gain due to reduced food intake. PGP is rapidly eliminated from
the body, primarily in the urine.
3. Hazards to the environment:
a. General toxicity to wildlife and fish: Mortality of
goldfish after 24 hr exposure - 07, at 0.1 ppm; 1007o at 0.4 ppm.
b. Adsorption and leaching characteristics in basic soil
types: Leaches readily--some evidence of partial adsorption in certain or-
ganic and clay soils.
c. Microbial breakdown: There is no build-up in soil, and
microbial breakdown is assumed.
d. Resultant average persistence at recommended herbicidal
application rates; Two to four weeks.
4. Pentachlorophenol in water: Pentachlorophenol has been found
in streams and has accumulated in fish tissues following industrial dis-
charge . ^=iZ£ii_L' Concentrations of PCP in sewage influent from three Oregon
cities ranged between 1 and 5 ppb; the subsequent sewage treatment (biolog-
ical treatment, trickling filter) was shown to decrease the concentration by
317
-------
only 4-28%. Conventional water processing was shown to remove about 60% of
the pentachlorophenol, leaving 40% in the finished drinking water.
5' The dioxin question: The presence of certain compounds called
"chlorinated dibenzo dioxins" in commercial pentachlorophenol has recently
caused much concern for the safety of this product to man and the environ-
ment. The concern originates mainly because of the fact that some chlori-
nated dioxin compounds are very highly toxic.
The structure and numbering system for substituted dioxins is
shown below:
The 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin produces very severe tox-
icological responses; the LD ranges from 0.6 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg)
in male guinea pigs to 115 ug/kg in rabbits; as little as 0.04 ug/ml produces
chloracne in rabbit ear bioassays. However, this dioxin isomer is not pres-
ent in any commercial pentachlorophenol product.
The dioxins present in commercial pentachlorophenol are hexachloro-
and octachlorodibenzo-p_-dioxins.
Hexachlorodibenzo-p_-dioxins are fatal to rats at doses of 100 mg/kg.
Chloroform solutions containing 10-50 ul/ml show acnegenic activity. A dose
of 100 ug/kg/day administered to pregnant rats has been found teratogenic;
doses of 1 or 10 ug/kg/day produced only subcutaneous edema. Daily doses of
10 and 100 ug/kg produce a positive response in chick edema bioassay, while
doses of 0.1 and 1.0 ug/kg are negative.
Octachlorodibenzo-p_-dioxin is much less toxic than the hexachloro
isomers. Doses of 1 g/kg and 4 g/kg failed to kill female rats and male
mice respectively. With regard to acnegenic activity, chloroform solutions
containing 10-50 ug/ml are inactive. Studies to date have revealed that the
octachloro isomer is essentially devoid of untoward activity in the embryo
and fetus. Finally, the octachloro isomer does not produce chick edema.
95/
Recent studies— have indicated that the presence of these di-
oxins in commercial products can be responsible for certain adverse effects.
"Commercial" PCP was compared to chemically pure PCP and an "improved" PCP.
The relative dioxin contents of these products are presented in Table XLII,
318
-------
along with the results of the toxicity tests. Note that the "improved" penta-
chlorophenol does not elicit chick edema nor chloracne. In addition, the
histopathological effects caused by impurities in commercial pentachlorophenol
have been eliminated.
Over the past 30 years there has been much less "pure" penta marketed
than is used today. However, there has been no record of industrial health
problems among users in either the millwork industry or wood treating industry.
TABLE XLII
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF TOXICOLOGICAL DATA OBTAINED
ON PENTACHLOROPHENOL SAMPLES
Commercial Chemically Improved
Dioxin Content PGP Pure PCP PGP
Hexachlorodibenzo-£-dioxins 19 0 1
Octachlorodibenzo-£-dioxin 1,980 0 30
Toxicity Study
Chick Edema Bioassay +
Rabbit Ear Bioassay +
Rat Feeding Study
Hematologic Depression +
Clinical Chemistry-
Alterations +
Liver Damage (Histopathology) +
Liver Weight Increase 30£/ + + +
10 + + +
3 +
Kidney Weight Increase 30 + + +
10 +
3 +
a/ Mg/kg/day.
Source: Dow Chemical Company (see text for reference).
319
-------
CASE STUDY NO.' 23 DICHLOROBENZENE
A. Product Description
Chemical Name: p-Dichlorobenzene; CgH,Cl2
Trade Names; Many
Pesticide Class: Household Fumigant against moths. It is also widely used
as lavatory space deodorant, and because potential impacts
of this use may be indistinguishable from those of moth-
ball application, it is included here.
Properties: Volatile white solid; Melting point 53°C; solubility in water,
80 ppm; soluble in alcohol, ether, benzene, chloroform
B. Manufacturers
Plant Estimated 1972
Name Plant Location Capacity Production
Allied Chemical Corp. Syracuse, N.Y. 14 10
Dover Chemical Corp. Dover, Ohio 4 4
Dow Chemical Company Midland, Mich. 16 16
Monsanto Sauget, 111 7 7
Olin Corp. Mclntosh, Ala. — 7
PPG Industries, Inc. New Martinsville, W. Va. 20 13
Standard Chlorine Company Delaware City, Del. 20 15
72*
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Para-dichlorobenzene and ortho-dichlorobenzene are both produced
almost entirely as by-products of the production of monochlorobenzene, which is
currently at about the 400 million Ib/yr. level, although decreasing.**
The ortho- and para-dichlorobenzenes are obtained in approximately equal
amounts, along with smaller amounts of tri- and tetra-chlorobenzenes and are
* The 72 MM Ib. is based on the Tariff Commission's figure of 70.4 MM Ib.
for 1971 production, but additional quantities may be produced regularly
as a reaction intermediate. Total annual production of p-dichlorobenzene
may be as high as 100-110 MM Ibs. according to one source.
** Monochlorobenzene production is expected to drop below 100 million Ib/yr.
by 1975 as producers of phenol (a major use of C6H5C1) switch to the
cumeme process.
320
-------
separated by distillation. The proportion of by-product in monochloro-
benzene production can easily be increased by longer chlorination. The
reaction chemistry is as follows:
Clx + HC1
Polychloro
benzenes
Benzene Chlorine Monochloro
benzene
(70-75%
yield)
Cl
Ortho Para
Dichlorobenzenes
(10-207o yield)
A production and waste control schematic is shown in Figure 54.
Waste control technology: At Dow Chemical, the HC1 by-product
is apparently recycled to chlorine production while trichlorobenzenes are
recovered. Dow says they have developed a proprietary process to reduce
the so-called "tetra-tar" (which can run from 5-10% of the monochlorobenzene
yield) back to dichlorobenzenes.
At Monsanto, the HCl is recovered as muriatic acid with only
small amounts escaping through vents or going to a waste treatment plant.
Polychlorobenzenes are not recovered and go to an approved landfill with
other liquid plant wastes. The landfill is on Monsanto-owned land and
is surrounded by wells that are periodically tested. Monsanto says that
plans are being developed to incinerate their chlorobenzene wastes. The
entire dichlorobenzene work area is ventilated and the air is monitored
for p-dichlorobenzene levels. Ventilation air goes to a wet scrubber;
the washwater collects little dichlorobenzene and is eventually discharged.
D. Formulation, Packaging and Distribution
Paradichlorobenzene has uses both as a consumer product and as
a reactive intermediate. Its main use as a pesticide is in moth control*
in woolen goods (where it acts as either a repellant or lavacide). It has
wide use in toilet stool and urinal blocks (where it may retard odor-
causing fungi or bacteria, as well as mask objectionable odors) and as a
space deodorant or "air freshener". Paradichlorobenzene is sold in two
purity levels: a product of>99% purity that is a solid at room temperature
(the major impurity being the orthoisomer); and a product of<99% purity
which is a liquid. The high purity material is required for the major
consumer products.
It has had minor uses against Peach Tree Borers, bark bettles, tobacco
blue mold, mildew and other fungi. It is a fungistat, not a fungicide.
321
-------
Benzene _ __
Benzene or
chlorobenzene 1
Hydrochloric ^ | 2
acid *li*J
Chlorine ^ Chlorinator
Water
I p*»Vent
^T Hydrochloric ["
Sodium acid *
hydroxide
NeutraliziM ^T~^
tank ^1
Dfchlorob
slud
toreca
• » Benzene and water
| » Benzene and chlorobenzene
I— *- Chlorobenzene
i
T 1— ^-Dichloro- and
polychlorobenzenes
to distillation
tnzene
••
very
Figure 54 - Production and Waste Schematic for p-Dichlorobenzene'
322
757
-------
Monsanto produces p-dichlorobenzene only of 99.9% purity and
markets most of it in the St. Louis area to several small companies that
make consumer products. It is shipped in 200 Ib. (55 gal) fiber-pack
drums and also in tank trucks equipped with heating coils. The drums
are one-way and combustible. Most of the tank trucks are leased
(although Monsanto does have some) and are 1007o dedicated to exclusive
service where a contamination problem exists.
Dow produces p-dichlorobenzene as a 99.5% purity solid and a
967o purity liquid (both are said not to contain high chlorobenzenes) but
does not produce any consumer products. Beginning in 1974, all of Dow's
p-dichlorobenzene will be shipped as a liquid (using heated, insulated
tank cars for the high purity product), but previously about half of it
was sold as a solid, either in railroad cars or in 200 Ib drums. The
99.57,, product is sold to about 24 processors that have capacities of
over 1 MM Ib/yr each of consumer p-dichlorobenzene products. The 967°
product is sold in part for industrial uses as a reactive intermediate
and in part to semi-producers or refiners, who separate the ortho-dichloro-
and trichlorobenzenes and sell 997o product to the processors, as well as
products to industrial users.
Two major p-dichlorobenzene processors are: Chemical Products
Corp. of Cartersville, Ga. (Capacity: -w 3MM Ib/yr) and Specialty Organics,
of Los Angeles, Calif. (Capacity: ^ 3MM Ib/yr). A major dichlorobenzene
refiner is Solvent Chemical Co., Inc. of Niagara Falls, N.Y. (Capacity:
15-20MM Ib/yr). In addition, Standard Chlorine, which is a prime producer
may also buy and refine additional dichlorobenzenes.
p-Dichlorobenzene is used as a reactive intermediate in the
production of agricultural pesticides (e.g. via 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene)
dyestuffs, and other chemicals, and also for other minor industrial uses
such as a porosity control agent (e.g. in the manufacture of grinding
wheels). About 75% of the p-dichlorobenzene used for these purposes is
consumed on the East Coast.
Of the total p-dichlorobenzene production, an estimated 25-30
million Ibs/yr goes to moth control use (balls, crystal powders), 25-30
million for lavatory-space deodorant uses and the remainder for other
purposes.
Orthodichlorobenzene, in contrast to the para-isomer, is used
almost entirely as a reactive intermediate (60-757o) and for other
industrial purposes (e.g. solvent component) although a small amount is
used as a space deodorant. A substantial part of that used as a reactive
intermediate is converted to pesticide (e.g. via chloroaniline to diuron
and linuron). Total production of orthodichlorobenzene according to the
Tariff Commission was 53.6MM Ib. in 1971, but one source has estimated
total production for 1972 at nearly 100 MM Ib.
323
-------
E. Use Patterns
General
Action
Application
Rate of
Application
Estimated
Distribution
Para-dichlorobenzene in its solid form,> 99% purity, is
used for moth control and space-deodorants and sublimes
at 50°F to a heavier-than-air vapor.
Fumigant against moths and their larvae, vapors act
as a space deodorant, and a fungisLat.
As a moth control agent, a usage of 1 Ib./lOO cubic
feet of confined space is recommended. Para-dichloro-
benzene is sold in various sizes and shapes for
lavatory space deodorants as the area requires.
The p-dichlorobenzene should be kept at a level such
that fumes in the confined area are concentrated enough
to cause irritation to the eyes. This level is suf-
ficient to maintain the fungistat properties. p-Dichloro-
benzene requires replacement at varying intervals de-
pendent upon sublimation rate.
(All figures in millions of Ib/yr of A.I., 1972).
United States Production
72
Imports Exports
Nil. 10
.Domestic Consumption
55 (moth control and
lavatory-space
deodorant purposes
only)
Pesticidal Use by Category and Geographical Region
Region
NE
SE
NC
SC
NW
SW
Agric.
Negl.
Industrial/
Commercial Govt
4
2
4
2
0.5
1.5
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
Home &
Garden
Total
10
7
10
7
1.4
3.6
14.7
9.3
14.4
9.3
2.0
5.3
Totals Negl. 14.0 2.0 39.0 55.0
A materials flow diagram for p-dichlorobenzene is shown, in Figure 55.
324
-------
"VJ -"SSSfes
w
hJ
Ln
p-Dichlorobentene Millions
l»72 Estimated: ^.b». AI
- U.S. Production
• Ixportl
- Export*
- U.S. Supply
- Pesticide Use
W* Production Plant
I.
s >•
Figure 55 - Materials Flow Diagram for p-Dichlorobenzene
-------
F. Alternatives
Chemicals : Naphthalene can be a moth fumigant but requires a usage of
5 lb/100 cu ft confined space; other space-odorants are avail'
able but none are as effective or inexpensive as p-dichloro-
benzene.
Nonchemical
There are no specific, practical, nonchemical alternatives.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian : The oral acute LD5Q of p-dichlorobenzene to rats is 2,620 mg/
Toxicity kg and for mice, 2,950 mg/kg placing it in the slightly toxic
range. The minimum dermal lethal dose for rabbits is > 1,260
mg/kg.
In humans, it causes moderate irritation to the eyes, throat,
nose, skin (but is not absorbed). In general, there are no
problems unless exposure is prolonged and usually severe. Per-
sons suffering from acute or chronic liver or kidney disease,
or from alcoholism are advised to avoid frequent exposure.
Continued exposure to vapors for months or years may cause
headache, portal cirrhosis, or atrophy of liver, and no specific
antidote is known.
Nontarget
Organisms
Environment
There are no data on toxicity to fishes, wild mammals, or soil
organisms. However, p-dichlorobenzene is known to be relatively
nontoxic to lower aquatic organisms and moderately toxic to
birds. It does not buildup in the food chain.
Para-dichlorobenzene undergoes degradation at a moderate to
rapid rate. It is degradable by biological organisms, non-
biological factors, and sunlight. The major degradation prod-
ucts are 2,5-dichlorophenoL, dichloroquinol, and conjugates.
There are no data as to persistence in soil. It has also been
detected in water supplies.
Evaluation : Para-dichlorobenzene is irritating to eyes, mucous membranes,
and skin only at levels not ordinarily voluntarily tolerated
by humans. It has been cleared of the suspicion that it may
produce cataracts in man. However, when used as specified, it
provides relatively safe and inexpensive moth protection and
space deodorant properties.
326
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 24 METHYL BROMIDE
A. Product Description
Chemical Name; Bromomethane
Trade Names: Bromo-0-Gas, Dowfume MC-2, Dowfume MC-33, MeBr, Meth-0-Gas,
Profume
Pesticide Class: Fumigant; Halocarbon
Properties: Liquified gas (BP 3.6°C); very toxic; probably not persistent
in sunlight
B. Manufacturers
Name
Dow Chemical
Company
Michigan Chemical
Corporation
Kerr-McGee Corpora-
tion
Great Lakes Chemical
Plant Location
Midland,
Michigan
St. Louis,
Michigan
Los Angeles,—
California
El Dorado, Arkansas
Plant Capacity
15 million Ib
3 million Ib
2.5 million Ib
10 million Ib
Estimated 1972
Production
13 million Ib
2 million Ib
2 million Ib
8 million Ib
C. Production Methods and Waste Control Technology
Information on Dow's production method and waste control tech-
nology for methyl bromide has been reported.!.' The reaction chemistry is:
6 CH3OH + 3Br2 + S
6CH3Br
A production and waste schematic for Dow's process is shown in Figure 56.
Methyl bromide is colorless, odorless, poisonous gas which must
be handled in a closed, refrigerated system. Dow receives the raw products
for the production of methyl bromide in tank cars or trucks. The
by-product is recovered and sold. Another possible by-product is
a/ This plant was moved to Trona, California, after 1972.
327
-------
ro
oo
Br,
A
System *
NaOH »
Fractionation
System *»CH3Br-
i
1
Dryer
/CM- _ ^_ p -
Hr>rt
H2SO4 — ^ Recovery
I
Scrubber
1
Waste
Treatment
Plant
Discharge
to River
Shipment
figure 56 - Production and Waste Schematic for Methyl Bromide (Dow Chemical)i
I/
-------
Dow has ~ 90% CI^Br recovery on the first pass. The CI^Br system is vented
through a caustic scrubber and the product is dried with silica gel. Con-
tainers are checked for leaks and a lacrymator is added as a warning agent.
D. Formulation, Packaging, and Distribution
The technical product is available in 1-lb cans (over 5 million
per year), 10-, 50-, 100-, and 50-lb cylinders, 1,500-lb pigs, and 13,000-lb
cylinders used in exportation. Dow provides the following formulations:
Profume®--987o methyl bromide plus 2% chloropicrin (a lacrymator added as a
leakage-warning agent), methyl bromide (100%), Dowfume® MC-2--98% AI, and
Dowfume® MC-33--67% methyl bromide and 3370 chloropicrin.
Methyl bromide is also available is formulations with 26% AI, and
in combinations with ethylene dibromide and with hydrocarbons.
E. Use Patterns
General : Methyl bromide is a volatile chemical of low molecular
weight and high vapor pressure, for application into stacks
of stored products in confined spaces or into the soil, for
the destruction of insects, nematodes, weeds, soil pathogens,
and other pest organisms. Fumigants such as methyl bromide
penetrate quickly into stacks of stored products or into
cracks and crevices and are preferred for the treatment of
commodities and containers or enclosed spaces that can be
sealed completely.
Action : Methyl bromide is a general biocide that destroys exposed
organisms by fumigant action.
Uses : Soil fumigantr - tobacco and vegetable seed beds, other seed
beds, greenhouses. Fumigation of grains and other commodi-
ties. Used in grain elevators, mills, warehouses, vaults,
shipholds, freight cars, etc.
Target Pests :> Insects, rodents, nematodes, soil pathogens, weed seeds, etc.
Rates of
1-2 lb/1,000 cu ft for commodities, 300-600 Ib Al/acre for
Application: soil fumigation.
329
-------
Frequency
Time of
Application
Estimated
Distribu-
tion
For protection of stored products: as required, 1-3 applica-
tions per year. Soil fumigation: one treatment per vegeta-
tion season.
Variable for stored products protection. Prior to planting
for soil fumigation.
(All figures in millions of Ib Al/year, 1972).
U.S. Production
25
Imports Exports Domestic Consumption
Negl. 2 23
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Region
NE
SE
NC
SC
NW
SW
Agricultural
0.6
2.7
0.3
0.9
0.2
4.3
Industrial, Government
Commercial Agencies
0.8
2.5
6.0
2.5
0.8
1.4
Home and
Garden Totals
1.4
5.2
6.3
3.4
1.0
5.7
Totals 9.0 14.0 Negligible Negligible 23.0
A materials flow diagram for methyl bromide is shown in Figure 57.
F. Alternatives
Chemicals
Nonchemical
Other fumigants including ethylene oxide, hydrogen cyanide,
hydrogen phosphide, ethylene dibromide, ethylene dichloride,
and others.
There are no nonchemical means for the destruction of stored
products pests. General sanitation is usually not sufficient
to prevent invasion of stored products by such pests. Limited
volumes of soil can be sterilized by steam.
330
-------
r*0-r\ 1_4>? \
Wwbi"**)0"'0 ~~^ I
3.4
South Centra! 22KST ! .
(.
Figure 57 - Materials Flow Diagram for Methyl Bromide, 1972
-------
G. Environmental Impact Potential
Mammalian
Toxicity
Nontarget
Organisms
Environment
Methyl bromide is a highly toxic chemical. Since
it is a gas at ambient temperatures, acute oral
toxicity tests are not pertinent. Skin contact
causes severe burns. It is highly toxic by in-
halation. Methyl bromide is severely irritating
to eyes, nose, throat and skin. In mammals, methyl
bromide will produce respiratory embarrassment,
cardiac arrest, and central nervous system irri-
tation. It requires labeling as a poisonous gas,
including skull and crossbones and the signal
word "Danger - Poison". Repeated exposures to
methyl bromide cause cumulative toxic effects,
including severe lung irritation and damage to
kidneys and the nervous system.
Inorganic bromides are found as residues in commo-
dities fumigated with methyl bromide. In chronic
feeding studies, 40.0 mg/kg/day of bromide fed
to rats showed no effect. Residue tolerances for
inorganic bromides resulting from the use of methyl
bromide have been established for many commodities,
ranging from 5 to 400 ppm, 20 to 50 ppm for most.
Methyl bromide may be used only by trained
professional operators.
Methyl bromide is highly toxic to most or all
forms of life. Nontarget organisms such as fishes,
lower aquatic organisms, birds, wild mammals and
soil organisms outside of treated areas will not
ordinarily come in contact with it. There is
no build-up in food chains.
Methyl bromide itself is not persistent. Since it
is applied as a gas, it disperses quickly into the
atmosphere unless confined. Its rate of volatili-
zation is high, but it is not likely to move away
from treated areas by leaching or surface run-off
in water or on solids.
Methyl bromide is degraded to inorganic bromides
which are persistent chemicals. Inorganic bromides
may persist in treated soils and carry over to the
following vegetation season.
332
-------
Evaluation : Methyl bromide is a highly toxic poison that
should be used only by trained professionals.
Handling by inexperienced persons invites dis-
aster. Aside from these operator hazards, there
are no indications of other serious hazards to
human health or to nontarget organisms, provided
the product is used strictly in accordance with
the label directions. No data are available
on the possible soil accumulation of inorganic
bromides from repeated soil fumigant use of
methyl bromide, or on the possible effects of bro-
mide residues on the environment in or near areas
of extensive use.
333
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 25 ORGANOTIN COMPOUNDS
A. Product Description*
Chemical Name: Tricyclohexyltin hydroxide
Trade Names; Plictran, Dowco 213
Pesticide Class: Acaricide
Properties: White crystals, m.p. 195-197°C, nearly insoluble in water,
soluble in most organic solvents.
Chemical Name; Triphenyltin hydroxide (fentin hydroxide)
Trade Names; Du-Ter, TPTH
Pesticide Class; Nonsystemic fungicide
Properties: White powder, m.p. 118-124°C, insoluble in water,
moderately soluble in most organic solvents.
Chemical Name: Bis(tributyltin) oxide (TBTO)
Trade Names: Butinox, Keycide X-10, Car-Ban T-0, Vikol, Aducide 340-A
Pesticide Class; Fungicide and antifoulant
Properties: Colorless to slightly yellow liquid, b.p. 210-214°C at 10 mm Hg,
insoluble in water, soluble in most organic solvents.
* Of the many known organotin compounds, only tricyclohexyltin hydroxide,
triphenyltin hydroxide, and bis(tributyltin) oxide are commercially
important pesticides in the United States at present, although some
other organotins have larger industrial uses, e.g., as stabilizers or
curing agents in plastics.
334
-------
B. Manufacturers and Formulators
Name
Organotin Manufacturers
M & T Chemicals, Inc.
Subisdiary of American
Can Company
Organotin Pesticide
Formulators
Plant Location
Estimated 1972
Plant Capacity Production
Rahway, New Jersey (Unavailable, See Section C)
Dow Chemical Company
Thompson Hayward
Chemical Company
Cincinnati Milacron
Chemicals,
Vikon Chemical
Company, Inc.
Witco Chemical
Midland, Michigan
Kansas City,
Kansas
Reading, Ohio
Elon College,
North Carolina
Chicago, Illinois
Unavailable
See Section C
Unavailable
See Section C
Unavailable
See Section C
Unavialable
See Section C
Unavailable
See Section C
0.4 million Ib
0.6 million Ib
0.8 million Ib
M & T is currently the largest industrial producer of organotin
compounds, most of which are used for nonpesticidal purposes. Other pro-
ducers are Cardinal Chemical, Columbia, South Carolina; Ferro, Cleveland,
Ohio; Cincinnati Milacron, Reading, Ohio; and Argus, a division of Witco
Chemical. M & T sells all of their production to other companies, including
the three organotins being considered herein.
C. Production.Methods and Waste Control Technology
M & T declined to provide information on its manufacturing process
or waste control technology, but the equation below and the schematic
shown in Figure 58 are believed to be representative.
The reaction most often used is as follows:
4 RC1 + Mg +
(Alkyl or
Aryl Halide)
catalyst
solvent
SnCl/
NaOH
R4Sn
R3SnCl
R3SnOH
or
335
-------
orannic
Chloride — »
Alkyl (or
Aryl) Halide •*
Magnesium ^
(Metal)
Reactor
Anisole
Catalyst
Solvent
i
Heat — »
Stannic
Chloride
Reactor
Trialkyl-(or
Triaryl ) tin
Chloride
NaOH — »•
Reactor
Trialkyl-(or
— ^- Triaryl) tin
Hydroxide*
Magnesium
Halide
NaCI
In the Case of Tributyltin
Chloride, the Hydrolysis Produces
Bis (Tributyltin) Oxide.
Figure 58 - Production and Waste Schematic for Organotin Compounds
-------
The following methods are also used in the U.S. to prepare R^Sn:
Wurtz Reaction
+ 4RC1 + 8Na - > R&n + SNaCl
Aluminum- Alky 1 Technique
3SnClA + 4RoAl - > 3R,Sn + 4A1C1,
*T J *T -J
D. Formulation. Packaging, and Distribution
1. Tricyclohexyltin hydroxide; Dow purchases a 90-95% technical
grade tricyclohexyltin hydroxide in 75 Ib fiber drums from M & T Chemical
Company. Dow then formulates it into a 50% WP and a 25% WP at the Midland,
Michigan facilities in dedicated equipment.
Plictran (Dow's trade name) 50% WP is sold in the U.S. and
packaged in 2 Ib bags, 12 to a case. Plictran 25W is shipped overseas.
Dow also produces 25W in the Netherlands.
Plictran is used primarily on the West Coast, and in New York,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. It is a miticide only.
2 . Triphenyltin hydroxide (Fentin hydroxide): Thompson-Hayward
purchases the triphenyltin hydroxide active ingredient from M & T Chemical
Company in 200 Ib fiberboard "kits" (drums). Formulation to Du-Ter® by
Thompson-Hayward is in an isolated area and in dedicated equipment.
T-H makes only one formulation, a 47.5% WP which has a patented
"safening agent" to reduce phytotoxicity, as well as wetting agents, emul-
sifiers, etc. The recycled bulk hoppers are used to ship the fentin
hydroxide to Iowa for packaging and distribution. Packages are polyethylene,
with a water soluble inner liner, and are of two sizes: 1 Ib and 30 oz
bags. The user can place Du-Ter, liner and all, in the mix tank. Bags are
shipped by truck; 24/case for the 1 Ib size and 10-12/case for the 30 oz
bags.
Triphenyltin hydroxide has heaviest use in the Southeast and North-
west, appreciable amounts across the North Central and South Central and
some in central California; very little is used in the East or in the cornbelt.
337
-------
3. Bis(tributyltin) oxide (TBTO); Bis(tributyltin) oxide is
sold by M & T Chemical Company as an unformulated, water insoluble liquid
containing 95% AI. In this form it is used as an antifouling agent for
marine paint and in applications where adsorption to cellulosic materials is
desirable, for example, for odor control on washed fabrics and wood preser-
vation. For other applications such as paper mill slime control or as a
fungicide in industrial cooling water, the product is sold as a water-
soluble or water-dispersible form by incorporating cationic or nonionic
surfactants into the formulation. Witco, a major formulator of TBTO, markets
Keycide X-10'B) with 12% AI. Witco recommends that TBTO be used in poly-
vinyl acetate latex paints at about 0.7 Ib AI/100 gal. of paint.
E. Use Patterns
1. Tricyclohexyltin hydroxide:
General: Tricyclohexyltin hydroxide (Plictran) is a
recently-developed, selective miticide. It is the first and, thus far,
the only organotin compound in its field. It controls strains of plant-
feeding mites resistant to other miticides. It is less toxic to predatory
(beneficial) mites and relatively harmless to honeybees and other insects.
These properties allow its use in integrated pest management programs. The
product has been used overseas for several years, but was registered in the
U.S. only in 1972. Its use is expected to increase.
Action: Contact miticide, controls motile forms of mites,
but has no ovicidal action (i.e. does not kill mite eggs).
Target crops: Apples, pears, nonbearing citrus, certain
ornamentals.
Target pests: Phytophagous (plant-feeding) mites.
Application: Foliar application by ground equipment
Rates of application: 1-4 Ib Al/acre, or 4-6 oz AI/100 gal.
of spray.
Frequency: 1-4 applications per season.
Time of application; Late spring to close to harvest on
deciduous fruits; spring and fall on citrus fruits.
338
-------
2. Triphenyltin hydroxide (Fentin hydroxide);
General; Triphenyltin hydroxide (Du-Ter) is one of a group of
organotin compounds that were developed primarily in Europe. It is the
only organotin fungicide currently in use in agriculture in the United
States. Triphenyltin b---Iroxide is an extremely effective fungicide, as evidenced
by the very low dosage rates required for control of the target fungus diseases,
Action; Contact fungicide, broad spectrum; protective and
curative action.
Target crops: Peanuts, pears, potatoes, sugar beets,
tobacco, carrots.
Target diseases; Cercospora leaf spot; Alternaria (brown
spot on tobacco; blight on potatoes and carrots); late blight; scab, brown
leaf spot, downy spot, leaf blotch, powdery mildew and other diseases on
pecans.
Application; Foliage sprays by ground or air equipment.
Rates of application; 2-5 oz Al/acre or 100 gal. for row
crops; 6-12 ox Al/acre for pecans.
Frequency; Multiple treatments at 7-14 day intervals, as
required.
Time of application; Throuj. Ait the growing season.
3. Bis(tributyltin) oxide; Bis(tributyltin) oxide, TBTO, gives
antibacterial, antifungal, and mothproofing properties to treated fabrics.
TBTO is effective in controlling bacteria in hospitals, such as Staphylococcus
aureus. TBTO has also been used to prevent odors in garbage pails, control
athlete's foot, control molds in bathrooms, control mildew on leather goods,
textiles, and plastics, and mothproof stored garments. TBTO is an active
ingredient in marine lumber prer rvation. Paint formulations containing
TBTO have controlled marine fouling for as long as cuprous oxide paints.
Industrial applications of TBTO include its use for slime control in paper
pulp mills and cooling towers.
4. Production of organotin compounds; Figure 59 illustrates the
overall production and use of organotin compounds. Pesticidal applications
are seen to be relatively small compared to the use of these compounds for
other pruposes. The three compounds chosen for this study represent the
major proportion of organotin compounds currently used in pesticidal appli-
cations. The use of these three compounds is summarized in Table XLIII
and the geographical distribution of this use is summarized below. Because
the pesticidal use of organotins is small compared to overall use, a
materials flow diagram is not warranted.
339
-------
HEAT STABILIZERS
(10-11 Million Lbs.)
TRANSFORMER OIL STABILIZERS
tetraphenyl tin
ORGANOTIN
PRODUCTION
(13-14
Million Lbs.)
to
£»
O
CATALYSTS
(3 Million Lbs.)
CURING AGENTS FOR SILICONE RUBBERS
dibutyltin dioctoate
dibutyltin dilaurate
PESTICIDES
(1.5 Million Lbs.)
RODENT REPELLANTS, MOLLUSICIDES,
FUNGICIDES, AND INSECTICIDES
triphenylHn hydroxide*
tributyltin chloride
triphenyltin acetate
triphenyltin chloride
dibutyltin dilaurate
tributyltin fluoride
tributyltin deodecanoate
MITICIDE
tricyclohexyltin hydroxide*
PVC STABILIZERS
dibutyltin dilaurate; dibutyltin maleate
dibutyltin laurate-maleate; dibutyltin
bis (lauryl mercaptide); dibutyltin S, S-
bis (isooctyl thioglycolate); dibutyltin
p - mercaptopropionate; di-n-octyltin maleate;
di-n-octyltin S,S-bis (isooctyl thioglycolate);
di-n-octyltin /S - mercaptopropionate
URETHANE AND ESTERIFICATION CATALYSTS
dibutyltin diacetate
diethyltin dioctoate
dibutyltin dilaurate
dibutyltin dichloride
dibutyltin dilauryl mercaptide
dimethyltin dichloride
dibutyltin dioctoate
dibutyltin di-2-ethylhexoate
PRESERVATIVES FOR WOOD, TEXTILES,
PAPER, LEATHER, AND GLASS
bis (tributyltin) oxide*
tributyltin linoleate
*Organotin Compounds Included in Intensive Study
Source: MRI estimates and W T Piver Environmental Health
Perspectives Exp Issue No 4. June 1973 p61
Figure 59 - Estimated Production and Use of Organotin Compounds
-------
TABLE XLIII
ESTIMATED U.S. USES OF SELECTED ORGANOTIN PESTICIDES
(In Thousands of Pounds of Active Ingredients)
Production
Export
Import
U.S. Uses
Fentin
Hydroxide
("Du-Ter")
0.60
Negl.
Negl.
0.60
Tricyclohexyltin
Hydroxide
("Plictran")
0.40
0.35
None
0.05
Bis(tributyltin)
Oxide (TBTO) Totals
0.80 1.80
Negl. 0.35
Negl. Negl.
0.80 1.45
341
-------
Al/year, 1972).
Estimated distribution: (All figures in millions of pounds
DOMESTIC USE BY CATEGORY AND GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
Industrial/
Region Agricultural Commercial
Tr icy c lohexy It in hydroxide
NE 0.01
SE 0.01
NC
-------
F. Alternatives to Use
1. Tricyclohexyltin hydroxide:
Chemicals: A number of other chemical miticides provide
control of piant-feeding mites. However, many strains of mites in many
areas have become highly resistant against individual miticides or groups
of chemically related products. Tricyclohexyltin hydroxide is unique be-
cause of its novel chemistry. Its spectrum of efficacy on mites is not
duplicated by any other currently available product.
Nonchemical: Plant-feeding mites have a number of natural
enemies, including predatory mites and fungi. When these are removed from
an ecosystem by the use of pesticides or otherwise, populations of plant-
feeding mites often build up to damaging levels. There are currently no
specific, direct nonchemical counter-measures available to fruit or
vegetable growers once this occurs. Integrated pest management procedures
should be used to prevent build-up of plant-feeding mites.
2. Triphenyltin hydroxide:
Chemicals: Dithiocarbamate fungicides; copper fungicides;
chlorothalonil (Bravo, Daconil); benomyl (Benlate); dodine (Cyprex), thia-
bendazole (Mertect); others.
Nonchemical: There are no specific, practical,
nonchemical alternatives for control o£ the plant diseases controlled by
these fungicides.
3. Bis(tributyltin) oxide (TBTO): As an antibacterial, anti-
fungal and mothproofing agent, TBTO competes with such compounds as copper
8-quinolinolate, copper and zinc naphthenates, zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate,
pentachlorophenol, and quaternary ammonium compounds. The main disadvantage
of TBTO is cost, but its major advantage is that it is colorless and will
not produce stains. As an antifoulding agent for paint, TBTO competes
with organomercuriaIs and organolead. In the control of slime in cooling
towers,, TBTO must compete with less costly, highly effective, but hazardous
compounds such as trichlorophenol and organomercurials.
G. Environmental Impact Potential
1. Tricyclohexyltin hydroxide:
Mammalian toxicity: Tricyclohexyltin hydroxide is
slightly toxic to laboratory animals via the oral and dermal routes,
343
-------
moderately toxic by way of inhalation exposure. The chemical is irritating
to the eyes and to the skin. Sensitization has not been observed in labora-
tory tests or in field experience. There are no reports of cumulative toxic
effects. The signal word "Caution" is required for labeling of the 50%
wettable powder formulation, the form most commonly used in the U.S.
In chronic toxicity tests, the highest no-effect levels
observed were 6 mg/kg of body weight per day for rats, 3 mg/kg of body
weight per day for dogs. Tolerances for residues of tricyclohexyltin
hydroxide have been established at 2 ppm for apples, pears and citrus,
8ppm for dried apple pomace and citrus pulp.
Nontarget organisms; Tricyclohexyltin hydroxide is
moderately toxic to fishes, relatively nontoxic to birds and wild mammals.
No data are available on its toxicity to lower aquatic organisms, soil
organisms, or on its possible build-up in food chains.
Tricyclohexyltin hydroxide is relatively nontoxic
to predatory mites, and to honeybees and other insects.
Environment: Tricyclohexyltin hydroxide is a moderately
stable chemical. It is not recommended for application directly to the
soil. It dissipates within days or weeks from plant surfaces, depending on
weather and other conditions. Half-life in orchard soils ranges for 2 to
6 months; there may be some carry-over of soil residues to the following
season. It is believed that degradation in the environment occurs through
photodecomposition, microbial activity, and chemical hydrolysis. Degrada-
tion products include dicyclohexyltin oxide (comparable in toxicity to the
parent pesticide) and cyclohexylstannoic acid, eventually inorganic tin.
Tricyclohexyltin hydroxide may volatilize to some extent
from moist (not from dry) surfaces. Based on field tests, leaching does
not occur. Surface run-off in water is unlikely due to very low water
solubility, but htere may be migration away from target areas by way of
soil erosion of material adsorbed on soil solids.
Evaluation; Tricyclohexyltin hydroxide formulations may
cause eye or skin irritation to operators. There are no indications of
other serious hazards to human health from the use of this chemical as an
agricultural miticide.
The chemical is toxic to fishes. Data on toxicity
to lower aquatic organisms and to soil organisms are incomplete at this time.
Water contamination in concentrations that would be acutely harmful to
aquatic ecosystems is unlikely to result from proper use of the product
in accordance with label directions.
344
-------
2. Triphenyltin hydroxide (Fentin hydroxide);
Mammalian toxicity; Results of acute toxicity tests in-
dicate that triphenyltin hydroxide falls into the "moderately toxic" category.
It is only slightly toxic to rabbits via the dermal route. The active in-
gredient is severely irritating to eyes, nose, throat and skin. Labels
of the 47.5% wettable powder formulation carry the signal word "Caution".
In chronic toxicity tests, the no-effect level to rats was 1.0 ppm, to
dogs 2.5 ppm. No cumulative toxic effects have been reported. Residue
tolerances ranging from 0.05 to 0.4 ppm have been established.
Nontarget organisms : Triphenyltin hydroxide is highly toxic
to fishes and lower aquatic organisms, and relatively nontoxic to birds and
soil organisms. No data are available on its toxicity to wild mammals,
or on possible food chain build-up.
Environment; Triphenyltin hydroxide is not recommended
for any applications directly to the soil. No data are available on its
possible migration away from treated areas by volatilization, leaching,
surface runoff, or wind erosion. Triphenyltin hydroxide is moderately
stable; its half-life in the soil has been estimated at 2-3 months. There
are no problems of carryover to the following vegetation season. It is
believed that triphenyltin hydroxide is degraded in the environment to in-
organic tin and COo, but the exact mechanisms and pathways are not known.
Evaluation; Triphenyltin hydroxide formulations may cause
skin irritation and/or irritation of mucuous membranes in persons handling
it. There are no indications of other serious hazards to humans from its
use as an agricultural fungicide in accordance with label directions.
Triphenyltin hydroxide is highly toxic to aquatic or-
ganisms including fishes. However, water contamination in concentrations
that would be acutely harmful to such organisms is not likely to occur if
the product is used properly. Triphenyltin hydroxide is a moderately per-
sistent, highly effective biocide, but it is used at very low rates of
application. Triphenyltin hydroxide products are relatively expensive to
the user. This is an effective deterrent against overuse or unnecessary use.
3. Bis(tributyltin oxide (TBTO);
Mammalian toxicity; Bis(tributyltin) oxide is moderately
toxic orally in rats; the acute oral LD5Q of TBTO on rats is approximately
200mg/kg. The acute dermal Ifi^Q established on albino rabbits is in the
range of 11,700 mg/kg. In its undiluted form (95%), TBTO is a primary skin
irritant. It has not been firmly established, by controlled experiments,
whether or not TBTO is a skin sensitizer. However, extensive tests have
345
-------
established that less than 500 ppm on a textile has no adverse effect on
the skin. This dosage is based on the weight of the textile.
TBTO is extremely hazardous to the eyes. Upon contact
it may cause damage if not treated promptly.
346
-------
APPENDIX A
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF PESTICIDES FOR INTENSIVE STUDY
347
-------
A systematic effort was made to select approximately 25 pesticides
for intensive study on this project. A goal was to select major pesticides
that would be representative of all the diverse uses of pesticides.
A preliminary rating was made for over 85 pesticides, based on
estimated production volume, use patterns, environmental concern and other
criteria. These ratings were reviewed with project officers from CEQ and
EPA; the weightings of certain criteria were revised slightly, a few new
criteria were added, and additional pesticides were suggested.
Approximately 125 pesticides were then divided according to
activity type (insecticides, herbicides, etc.) and chemical class and
rated with the results shown in Table A-I. A summary of these ratings is
shown in Table A-II and the recommended pesticides are listed in Table
A-III. The guidelines for ratings are shown below. At the suggestion
of EPA officials the organotin compounds were selected in place of the
copper compounds.
348
-------
Sl|:?j2°>£!:£hg'S'Sg
wlSTSSffiSiLonoifc
» « r» O ( 3" •« !-• S 5 i-*
>i S ^ * ? ?
w J 'Q o 3
S. ° 3
1 <
rt » -3
Si
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
ulOJIOOOtoououtou
1
OOOOfoooOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOO
1
olooooooooooo
1
to|l»**K>ON>iouo.Kiuu
1
1
olooooooooooo
1
1
1
1
1
olooooooooooo
1
f'o oooooooooo
4>t 000000000
1
olooooooooooo
1
olooooooooooo
1
1
O IO OOOOOOOOOO
1
1
.0 10 OOOOOOOOOO
1
oooooooooooo
1
!
1
oooooooooooo
1
O|O OOOOOOOOOO
1
1
0|0 OOOOOOOOOO
o(O OOOOOOOOOO
1
1
(
- V ii i1 uuuiuuiuiu>u
1
1
oooooooooooo
1
0 1 o
Oo^oOorouJ^^o^oo
01
1
1
1
Sg?3S?»? 'So
slfsSooSS iSo
3"XHrtHi33-3- BJ»
I »! C> 0 33 1
S " S '
,J » 1
0 I
1
1
!
1
*" 1
1
1
OtoOOOt-ol*JO lo o
1
1
^OUUUMWroUjloia
1
OfoOOOjoONJO*— O
^OOOt-^Oh-o'oO
'
OOi—OOOi-'f-'l-'lOO
1
wrowwwro^^wK-JW
I
ooooooooooo
1
1
OOOOOOt-'Oi-'Qi-'
c- 0>--h--^--000(00
OOOOOOOOOOO
1
ooooooooooo
1
OOOOOi-'K'i-'l-j|OO
1
OOOOOC-h-0,-00
OOOOOOl— OOOO
1
OOOOOOOOOOO
1
OOOOOOOWi-OO
)
OOOOOOOOOOO
f
t
WrororoOOOOOU;^
1
1
0000, 00. 0000
I-1 (-• NJ hO !--• [J t-J 1
-si 0 0. h- 0 0 00 u, U> W. vo
-. v£> 0 W *-(
1
S S o o Iw ofopiiTicsnisi^oo''-*
?mtrir,*-' o. onorrEr^io »
O !-• O (B |O, pJWK-ITipsOM^'O "fl /
3X^MH S C300X30. D- ft. XflBO /
?• 1 ft ii V» f^ ,-n 3 S "/£" /
ssl g§ ^^roni ? / sr 5- /
IP I O. O *"*"/ K /
1 w H S/ ,/
i O (b J /
' //
1
1
1
OOOolt>OOOOOOOtotowoO
1
1
0>UUUlO!ON>to!0!OOlJO^IOOUl
*** Total
Ind. , Contn. , and
** Inst. Use
w Agricultural Use
1
1
OOtoOOOC OoOOKlOOOO
1
000 ^OOOOOOOOOOOO
+, Governmental Use
t-- Home and Garden Use
1
000 |0 Oooooooooooo
4, Export and Other Use
1
ojoLooltooiooroujotootoororo 1+ Toxicity, Manmals,
1 Acute
1
OOOO IO OOOOOOOOOOOO
1
-P- Toxicity, Special
1
1
^, Toxicity, Birds
1
1
OOOO |O OOOOOOOOOOOO
J
T luxiUA i.y , r i&it
it Toxicity, Invert.
1
oooo(-p-4>^rotoojto-p-o^j>j>M K Persistence
1
oooo|K.r-j(oootoorjotororoo [+ Biomagnif ica tion
OOOO |o OOOOOOOOOOOO
+ Environ. Mobility
1
'
ooooooooooooooooo
+ Wide Spectrum
Activity
1
LJ Regulation Discussed
1
ll . . 1 .
OOOOOJNJOOOfoOOOLOOLJO
^ Likely to be Cancelled
1 Soon
1
1
OOOOOOOOOOOOOUJloroi-'
£ "Wasteful" Use Pattern
)
OOOOt'—OOOOOOOOi-ro.-'.-- '
£ No Available Alternatives
1
1
1 Increased Use Forecast
1
OOOO Ii-- OOOOOOOOWO4>O
i Decreased Use Forecast
J
1
£> A Leading Product in an
Important Group
1
OOOo'f-^WCJ^In^WWWOOOO
0| UiWCJUiUiWOJUJ 0
, Group Already Well
^ Represented
1
ooooooooooooooowo M^ Special Consideration
1
l_l|_,rotoj(_, j_, l_, ^-(-.fo^,-.^ 1 1 Dta 1
r-U.O*>|M-JWiU»WOJN(^»oUiO*>0*
co IT- | u> >-> NJ Ik. ink, 'llus CaU-fcory
1
f
1
-------
ose
S? | 9'5 g
o. 1 ^-15 Si
I- O O *O
i e 2'i"
>i S."
I 2?
3 K* H
**• rh P>
ft 1 A
P
n
H- •(> Ul
O O O
o o o
000
U) 0 O
000
0 0 O
0 O O
o o o
i- O O
o o o
000
O O „
o o o
0 0 r-
O 0 0
0^-0
t- O i—
o o o
o o o
*-
»
"
0 O
o o
o o
0 O
~~
0 0
o o
o o
o o
o o
0 O
0 O
0 O
o o
0 O
0 O
o o
0 0
o o
0 O
IP
0 *-
ro o
0 0
K- o
o o
o o
o o
o o
0 0
0 0
O 0
O 0
0 0
o o
0 0
o o
0 0
0 0
o o
0 C
^
55 o < m co
to 3- n -o c
•C O 1 H ft
IT M a n *«:
u 13 0 t-
» 0 B r»
3- ft
1
00000
o o o o o
O O O H- O
O 0 0 0 0
O O i— ^- O
o o o o o
o o o o o
o o o o o
O O O O O
0 0 O O 0
0 O O 0 0
o o o o o
0 O 0 0 O
o o o o o
00000
o o o o o
o o o .— o
0 ~ 0 0 0
o o o o o
O O O O O
fC2gSf'S?gS
3 1 i 5 p '8 ? 1
D H a o B la.
o n 3 o x
C H* »*
o
o o o o o
o o o o o
o o o o o
„ ^ 0 0 =
O O O O O
O O O O 0
o o o o o
o o o o c>
O O O O C)
O O 0 0 0
o o o o c>
o o o o c
o o o o o
o o o o o
O O O O O
0 C> 0 0 ro
o o o o o
0 O 0 0 O
o o o o o
>- *-
>
2.
a.
t-> O >—
o o o
000
coo
- - -
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
,-*-»-.
o o o
O *•" »->
o o o
000
o o o
000
w ^ -
W W 0
o o o
M
w
Triflura
Dinoseb
Nitralin
5-
0 •-• O
O t-« O
OOO
OOO
o u> o
OOO
o •- o
c- O »—
000
000
OOO
OOO
000
OOO
0 0 •->
000
OOO
OOO
*o m o to o Q
r~ 3 n - H- 31
n a. *B u> o t->
o 8 " V 1 S
ID* i 5- u
§ t s * 1
^ > n
3
ro O O N) ro O
O O O O H- o
O O •-* 0 r- 0
(-• O O O O O
O W O »-• O O
0 O 0 0 r-- O
O O O 0 0 0
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
OOO. O^O JCA-
o o o o o o
O O 0 0 O 0
0 O 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
^- O O O UJ O
O O O hj O O
O O 0 0 O O
o o o o o o
*- 1-
*
tn M ro
— *• V
< - 1
- *- r-
O O hJ
0 0 r-
O h- r-
- M-
O K* O
OOO
OOO
OOO
O..O O
000
000
0^-0
OOO
0 0 >-
000
O ro O
OOO
O N) 0
1- K»
N)
31 C3 "O n >• "0
h- £ 0 5 to* 0
rt 3" T3 > O 13
r* it p» 3* B»
0 S 3 i- 0
W H- O 3"
x 3 c- i t-
k H- 0
ao.
(to
a.
n
000000
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o ^- o o o
0 i- 0 >- H- K-
o o o o o o
O O O O O O
o o o o o o
e o o o o o
o o o o o o
O O • ' O O O
o u c_- o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
O O O O O O
O O O 0 *- i-
o o o o o o
O ro o o ; c;
O O O C O O
H- t—
u-
"0 W >
1 i B
» N N "0
— 33 v> 1 tf> BO /^
3fDrt rf/fitt /0>
n M / B> rt /
r- / rt* 3
(W 00
/ /
/ ^
o *^ >—
o o o
O O t—
O O O
o o o
000
o o o
000
o o o
000
O h- »—
o o o
Total
Ind. , Comm. , and
*~ Inst. Use
4. Governmental Use
+ Home and Garden Use
, Export and Other Use
+Toxicity, Mammals,
Acute
t-Toxictty, Special
t-Toxictty, Birds
^Toxictty, Fish
it. Toxicity, Invert.
4- Biomagnification
£ Environ. Mobility
Wide Spectrum
- Activity
o o o 1+ Regulation Discussed
o o o
000
0 0 K>
o o ro
coo
o o o
, Likely to be Cancelle
w Soon
j^'Vasteful" Use Patter
+ No Available Alternat
u>
+ Increased Use Forecas
Decreased Use Forecas
i-
+ A Leading Proudct in
00 Important Group
, Croup Already Well
**" Represented
ooo ^ Special Consideration
- ,- w [Total
o >- iKank, Ihta Catf^iry
ft S
-------
ISC
OtHCll"0'-ipWZZl»irNN3:3:|'«1Opl H "01
n B a f »*i— 0*B(rS-OOi— oOOOOOi—
1
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
1
1
rs)<7-ChO*-OOOOON>*-00
1
1
1
ooolo ooooooooo
1
1
OOOOO OOOOOOO
1
t
1
1
{
t
1
o
O 0 O
o o o
000
>- «- w
O 0 0
o o o
O O 0
o o o
O 0 O
o o o
O O 0
O O ro
O 0 O
O 0 O
o o *-
~~s,
O 0 O
O O 0
O 0 O
=r »
30 3"
<• 3 o
(t •a
i S1
£•
ro *• *-
o o o
o o o
»- Ul «•
o o o
o o o
0 0 .-
i- M W
0 O O
o o o
o o o
ro O O
o o o
0 O O
I- »- U>
o »- «-
o o o
ro *• OD
o o o
o o o
OD K)
1 1 00 00 O |O 1ft |l> ft
SlOQ*!*.— >-4O
*e
n jT\
• 3 "O , O / •- K- X^ *
* 7> O IOT lo J **/»3 X ft
5 1!?!-! / J/ s
2 l" 1 1 / x' S
III / / 0
III / /
III 1 T0"1
1 1 1
*- U U K. 'o 'u 'f *•
" " " 1 l" 1
1 1 1
~ ' ' '
M 1 f 1
0 O 0 O •- 0 O 0 H-
1 1 1
1 1 1
O 0 O O 0 10 10 |0 O
1 1 1
1 1 1
10 U N> "ill
1 1 1
Ind, , Coaat, , and
*- Inat. Us«
w
^ Governmental Use
+ Home and Ga rden U • c
^ Export and Other Use
e
1 1 1
h- O O O 0 |O IO 1*- *•
1 1 1
O ^ 0 0 O 10 10 |O O
1 1 1
- — .-!-K--
+. Toxic! ty, Special
**
+ Toxiclty. Birds
+ Toxictty, Fish
1 1 1
+, Toxicity, Invert.
1 1 1
U ** <»i •- M IO Iro Iro ro
t 1 1
0 ro M 0 0 |0 |0 |0 >->
+ Persistence
*. Biomagnif icatlon
III
O H* O 0 »- 0 O 0 0
+ Environ. Mobility
t 1 1
O •- O O O IO l»- |0 i-
1 1 1
1 1 1
o w o a o |o lo 1— o
1 1 1
OwOOOOOOO
+ Wide Spectrum
^ Activity
£, Regulation Discussed
* Likely to be Cancelled
III Soon
1 1 1
0 0 0 O 0 10 Ic- 1.- •-
1 1 1
OOOOO 1*— Iro Iro kx>
+ 'Wasteful" Use Pattern
i No Available Alternatl
1 1 1
•~o»-ooo:ooo
-f Increased Use Forecast
< III
O U> O 0 0 0 0 0 0
^ Decreased Use Forecast
f 1 1
1 1 1
*-*-e-ooo£-N).c-c»
1 1 1
+ A Leading Product in a
00 Important Group
1 1 1
1 1( \ t
0 O 0 W 0 |O Iw Ivi 0
1 1 1
Group Already Well
^ Represented
1 III
O ts> 0 O 0 0 0 0 t-
u< Special Consideration
1 t 1
o o IT- en o ^i «- IKank, LliLs category
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
11
-------
c » t
jri
«I
o
*> 3"
£f
£
it
o o o
0 O 0
o o o
o o o
O 0 O
O •- 1-
O O 0
o o o
o o o
h- 0 O
oio
M 0 *-
O O 0
o o o
-
u»
w z lo n p o to o DC o
err -0 Irt 3-t-ll ST ET «0 0 rtO
„"£.?; ,2'£Sor3'£ol£.3'£
e>A:rOni9Bnt3Oi-'O
o a S in 3 * 5 a a t n
aa^onnonnaotoo
ooS'&oSrSo-'SSg'
x &• |o a- >* >»> o "I nan
-n VH-&H--OO Sna
CL* |rtor»&>*iB n n
ft jr M « o H-
||» M- 1 T3 0-
3 C. • fl>
,. . g
i
i
i
i
i
i
_i
i M M1J
0 OOOO OOO 01-
1
o olooo ooo oo
1
1
1
'
0 0,000 000 00
I
1
1
O OOOO OOO OO
1
o olo^o ooo o •-
o o o o o ooo oo
1
o olooo ooo i- o
1
1
O O|OOO OOO OO
1
0 OOOO OOO 00
1
1
1
0 O|OOO OOO Of
1
O OOOO (->I->O Biomagnif ication
i* Environ. Mobility
^Vlide Spectrum
Activity
u> Regulation Discussed
^Likely to be Cancelled
Soon
w "Wasteful Use Pattern
u>No Available Alternatli
J. Increased Use Forecast
** Decreased Use Forecast
f A Leading Product in a
Important Group
, Croup Already Well
*"" Represented
'•"Special Consideration
Rank, Tliis Cateogry
i ?
? f
(• rt
» o
-------
GUIDELINES FOR RATING PESTICIDES IN TABLE A-I
Production Rating Scale
Production
(mm Ib/year AI) Rating
< 1
1-4
5-14
15-29
30-49
50-99
100-200
> 200
0
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
Toxicity, Acute
LD50 Rating
> 2,000 0
500-2,000 1
50-500 2
<50 3
Toxicity. Special
Carcinogenic, teratogenic or mutagenic properties of the pesticide
or its impurities reported.
Toxicity
Toxicity to birds, fish or invertebrates resulting from normal
use patterns.
Persistence
The following scale has been used where possible, but persistence
varies with conditions and data are often unavailable.
Time
(months for 75-10070)
Disappearance
< 1
1-3
3-10
10-18
> 18
Rating
0
1
2
3
4
Biomagnification, wide spectrum activity and the categories under
regulatory interest are largely self-explanatory. The "no alternatives
available" implies that no effective, economical substitute pest-control
method is now available for one or more major uses of the named pesticide.
353
-------
The "increased" and "decreased use forecast" columns consider re-
strictions on competitive products and regulatory actions as well as normal
market potential.
The column, "A leading product in an important group," considers
not only the chemical class but also the use pattern. The highest rating is
given to a product that is a leading example of an important group in which
no single member is otherwise highly rated.
Special Considerations
DDT; The decision to cancel most uses of DDT in the U.S. has
already been made by EPA in a special ruling.
Aldicarb; Pure aldicarb is the most toxic of major pesticides,
but is marketed only as a 10% granular formulation.
Methyl parathion; The substitution of methyl parathion for the
less toxic DDT on cotton has necessitated a farm worker retraining program.
Disulfoton: This product is especially representative of a large
class of very toxic agricultural insecticides.
Parathion: The reentry controversy requires special consideration.
2.4.5-T; The production of 2,4,5-T has dropped greatly since its
military use halted and in addition, presently produced material contains
little or none of the objectionable chloro-dioxins formerly produced as an
impurity.
Creosote; The environmental aspects of this heavily used pesticide
have been little studied. Much creosote-treated wood is placed in close
contact with water.
Mercurials: The objectionable use of alkyl mercury fungicides
for seed treatment has been cancelled.
Dichlorobenzene; Much of this chlorinated hydrocarbon is placed
directly into wastewater via lavatory use* and into the air we breathe at
home and at work. Studies of the environmental aspects are negligible to
date, and the conventional method used for analysis of chlorinated hydro-
carbon pesticides in water does not normally detect dichlorobenzene. It
has, however, been detected in the blood of workers exposed to it regularly
and appears to accumulate in fatty tissues like other chlorinated hydrocarbons.
A fundamental question of the definition of the word pesticide is raised
when one considers the lavatory use of dichlorobenzene (e.g., does it
kill organisms that cause odors?). Disinfectants are increasingly listed
with pesticides in some government statistics.
354
-------
TABLE A-II
SUMMARY OF RATINGS
Group
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Insecticides
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Aldrin
Methyl Parathion
Ma lath ion
Carbaryl
Disulfoton
Carbofuran
Diazinon
Inorganic Arsenates
Total
30
26
25
25
25
24
20
20
20
18
Herbicides
Atrazine
2,4-D
MSMA
Trifluralin
Alachlor
Chlorates
Bromacil
Diuron
Dicamba
Simazine
Total
26
22
21
20
18
18
16
16
15
15
Fungicides
and
Preservatives
Creosote
PCP
Cap tan
Maneb
Inorganic Coppers
Organo Tins
Coal Tars
TCP
Chromates ,
Petroleum Oils,
Mercurials (Tie)
Total
37
32
22
22
21
20
20
19
17
Fumigants Total
Dichlorobenzene 21
Methyl Bromide 20
Ethylene Dibromide 14
Dichloropropene-propane 13
Aluminum Phosphide 12
Parathion (Tie)
-------
TABLE A-III
PESTICIDES RECOMMENDED FOR STUDY
Pesticide Rating Total Type
1 Creosote 37 F
2 Pentachlorophenol 32 F
3 Chlordane 30 I
4 Toxaphene 26 I
5 Atrazine 26 H
6 Aldrin 25 I
7 Methyl Parathion 25 I
8 Malathion 25 I
9 2,4-D 24 H
10 Carbaryl 24 I
11 Captan 22 F
12 Maneb 22 F
13 MSMA 21 H
14 Dichlorobenzene 21 Fu
15 Methyl Bromide 20 Fu
16 Trifluralin 20 H
17 Diazinon 20 I
18 Disulfoton 20 I
19 Carbofuran 20 I
20 Parathion 18 I
21 Alachlor 18 H
22 Chlorates 18 H
23 Bromacil 16 H
24 Diuron 16 H
25 Copper or organotin compounds (21)£/ F
I - Insecticide; H - Herbicide; F - Fungicide; Fu - Fumigant.
a/ The copper (and similarly the tin, chromium and mercury) fungicides
require special consideration because no single chemical cpmpound
is involved.
356
-------
APPENDIX B
PESTICIDE USAGE IN SELECTED STATES
357
-------
Data on the statewide use of pesticides is now being compiled by
several states. As a result of our survey of the Federal/State Cooperative
Extension Services (discussed in Chapter IV, Section C-2), data from several
states were obtained. The data vary widely in quantity and quality. For a
few states the data appear to include most—although not all--of the pesti-
cide quantities used within the state. For other states, data may be avail-
able on only a few pesticides (e.g., restricted chlorinated hydrocarbons),
for only a few counties within the state, or in a form which does not denote
the total pounds of active ingredient for individual pesticides.
One of the most comprehensive reports is available from California.
The California Department of Agriculture compiles information on pesticide
use from data submitted by: "Licensed Agricultural Pest Control Operators,
Licensed Structural Pest Control Operators, California Division of Highways,
California Department of Water Resources, Vector Control Agencies, State and
County Agricultural Departments, University of California, County Road Depart-
ments, Irrigated Districts, U.S. Government Agencies, Reclamation Districts,
City and County Parks, and various School Districts. It also includes reports
from growers using injurious materials and injurious herbicides requiring a
permit for use." The report does not identify pesticides that require the
permit for use noted in the last sentence; presumably most agricultural pesti-
cides are included, but pesticides used in the home and garden may not be.
358
-------
TABLE B-I
PESTICIDE USAGE IN ARIZONA, 1972—
96/
Pesticide
Quantity
(1,000 Ib AI)
Pesticide
Qua ity
(1,000 Ib AI)
A. INSECTICIDES
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Aldrin
BHC
Chlordane
Chlorobenzilate
DDT
Dieldrin
Dilan®
Endrin
Heptachlor
Kelthane (Dicofal)
Perthane®
Rhothane® (ODD)
S trobane®
Thiodan® (Endosulfan)
Toxaphene
Others
Subtotal
Organic Phosphates
Azodrin®
Bidriri^
Cygon© (Dimethoate)
Delnav® (Dioxathion)
Diazinon
Dibrom© (Naled)
Disyston® (Disulfoton)
Dylox® (Trichlorfon)
Ethion
Guthion® (Azinphosmethyl)
Malathion
Meta Systox R (Oxydemeton—
methyl)
Monitor^
Parathion (Ethyl)
27.8
9.2
135.5
1.0
O.O*/
29.4
0.0^'
23.7
12.0
5.2
50.6
Q.0£/
509.2
77.0
1,468.3
1.1
2,350.0
197.1
12.7
47.2
14.6
75.6
13.7
81.1
16.1
11.9
.) 18.5
79.0
m— -
5.0
48.9
1,231.5
Parathion (Methyl) 2
Phosdrin® (Mevinphos)
Phosphamidon
Systox® (Demeton)
Thimet<§> (Phorate)
Subtotal 4
Carbamates
Baygon®
Lannate® (Methomyl)
Sevin® (Carbaryl)
Temik® (Aldicarb)
Subtotal
Miscellaneous Insecticides
Cryolite
Thuricide®
Sabadilla
Ryania
Sulfur 1
Galecron® (Chlordi-
meform)
Subtotal 1
Fumigants
Methyl Bromide
Vapam® (Metham)
Nemagon® (DBCP)
Telone (D-D®)
D-D® (Vidden-D)
Subtotal 1
Total Insecticides 9
,052.4
116.9
21.0
0.7
102.6
, 146 . 5
0.5
122.9
232.2
41.5
397.1
120.9
77.0 gal
24.3 gal
11.0
, 148 . 6
160.9
. , 1 . b/
,441.4—
6.9
21.8
191.5
632.6
165.0
,017.8
,352.8^
359
-------
TABLE B-I (Concluded)
Pesticide
Quantity
(1.000 Ib AI)
Pesticide
Quantity
(1,000 Ib AI)
B. HERBICIDES
2,4-D
2,4,5-T
MCPA
Banvel-D® (Tricamba)
Fenac®
Endothall
Daethai® (DCPA)
Dinoseb (DNBP)
Dalapon
TCA
Balan®
Planavin® (Nitralin)
Treflan® (Trifluralin)
Bensulide
Eptam® (EPTC)
IPC (Propham)
Aminotriazole (Amitrole)
Atrazine
Caparol (Prometryne)
Diquat®
Paraquat
Prometone
Pyramin® (Pyrazon)
Propazine
Simazlne
Cotoran® (Fluometuron)
Hyvar X® (Bromacil)
Monuron
Diuron
Linuron
Tenoran® (Chloroxuron)
DSMA
MSMA
DMAA
C. DEFOLIANTS AND
DESSICANTS
Def® 75.5
Folex® 10.8
Sodium Chlorate 1,145.4
Magnesium Chloride 16.5
Dessicant: L-10®
(Arsenic Acid) 63.7
Total 1,311.9
D . FUNGICIDES
Cap tan 7.0
Copper Sulfate 40.0
Botan® (DCNA) 5.4
Benlate (Benomyl) 4.8
Folpet
Daconil® (Chloro-
thalonil)
Maneb
PCNB
Polyram®
Zineb
Ziram
Phaltan (Folpet)
Total 143.8
3.6
36 . 0
12 . 6
0.0^'
33.5
O.O3-/
0.9
Total
838.2
a/ Use reported during 1966 to 1971 period.
b/ Total does not include Thuricide^ (Bacillus thuringiensis) and
Sabadilla.
360
-------
TABLE B-II
PESTICIDE USAGE IN CALIFORNIA--QUANTITIES REPORTED FOR 1972JZ/
Pesticide
Quantity
(Ib AI)
Pesticide
PART A: INSECTICIDES Total: 28,622,130 Ib AI
(includes Rodenticides, Miticides, Molluscides, and Insect Repellents)
Methyl bromide
Dichloropropene (and related
compounds)
Chloropicrin
Toxaphene
Carbon disulfide
Parathion
Malathion
Endosulfan
Carbaryl
Methyl parathion
DBCP
Chlordane
Dicofol
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Naled
Methomyl
Azinphosmethyl
Cryolite
Mevinphos (and related compounds)
Dimethoate
Omite^
Diazinon
Ethion
Trichlorfon
Disulfoton
Azodrirf^
Chlorphenamidine
Sulfuryl fluoride
Aldicarb
Methyl-demeton
Methoxychlor
Carbophenothion
TEPP (and related compounds)
Dioxathion (and related compounds)
Lead arsenate
EDB
Dieldrin (and related compounds)
DDT
Monitor^
Perthane (and related compounds)
Phosphamidon (and related compounds)
Chlorobenzilate
Fenthion
Carzol SP^
Aluminum phosphide
Demeton
5,368,100
4,720,400
1,873,800
1,783,700
1,757,800
1,097,100
922,000
882,600
845,600
768,600
625,100
592,500
588,300
489,100
463,500
456,000
436,400
370,400
353,300
345,200
313,500
311,200
220,600
215,500
211,200
205,800
189,400
177,800
164,500
149,300
140,100
116,100
112,300
111,100
107,400
106,800
90,100
81,700
80,800
78,400
67,900
65,500
64,000
57,800
42,800
42,200
37,900
Aldrin
Phosphoric acid
Calcium arsenate
Gardona"'
Sodium arsenate
Bidrirt^
Carbon tetrachloride
Morestarf
Baygon1^
Lindane
Chlorpyrifos
Carbofuran
Endrin treated seed
Dichlorvos
Tetradifon
Metaldehyde
Abated
Rotenone (and related compounds)
Ethylene dichloride
Heptachlor
Silica aerogel
Cube extracts, other
Pine oil
Sodium fluoride
Arsenic trioxide
BHC (and related compounds)
MGK R-ll
Zinc phosphide
Zectran
Lethane 384-R
Sodium hyposulfite
Endrin
Gophacide
Pyrethrins
Azinphosmethyl
Tritox X114
-------
TABLE B-II (Continued)
Pesticide
(l.ilciura cyanide
1'hospliorus
1'lictran
Sodium fluoroacetate
Fensulfothion
Rvitnia speciosa
Methyl trithion
Pentac
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Ronnel
Diphacinone
Ammonium fluosilicate
Ethyl formate
Sulfur dioxide
Quantity
(Ib AI)
300
300
300
300
250
250
200
200
200
170
150
130
100
100
PART B: HERBICIDES Total: 16,090,710 Ib AI
(includes Plant Growth Retardants)
Sodium chlorate 6,237,300
Sulfuric acid 1,291,900
2,4-D 1,219,400
Sodium arsenite 716,100
Molinate 657,600
Def® 469,700
Dinoseb and salts 460,600
Simazine 358,300
Dalapon 335,900
DCPA 281,500
MCPA (and related compounds) 260,200
MSMA 245,800
Paraquat 235,600
Diuron 228,000
Propham 206,300
Trifluralin 198,500
TCA, Sodium salt 196,800
Nitrofen 163,400
Diphenamid 162,500
Atrazine 152,600
Bromacil 152,200
Magnesium chloride 149,700
Amitrole 141,600
Propanil 140,000
Sodium metaborate 132,200
AMS 120,600
Folex 109,400
2,4,5-T 107,900
Maleic hydrazide 86,300
EPTC 67,100
Pebulate 61,300
DSMA 58,700
Pyrazon (and related compounds) 48,400
Benefin 47,800
Prometryne 40,200
Nitralin 38,900
Dichlorprop (and related compounds) 33,900
Endothall 33,300
Monuron 33,300
Silvex (and related compounds) 32,500
Karbutilate 29,300
Quantity
Pesticide (Ib AI)
Fluometuron 25,100
Dicamba 21,800
Cacodylic acid 20,900
4(2,4-DB) (and related compounds) 20,200
Butylate 18,200
Bromoxynil 17,200
Linuron 17,200
Phenmedipham 16,000
Chloropropham 14,800
Sodium cacodylate 14,500
Bensulide 12,900
Diquat 12,900
Fenac 12,200
Chloroxuron 11,900
Cycloate 11,400
(2,4-DB) 8,900
Magnesium chlorate 8,900
Norea (and related compounds) 8,500
Calcium cyanamide 8,400
2,3,6-TBA dimethylamine salt
(and related compounds) 7,200
Picloram (and related compounds) 6,100
Chlorine 5,300
Dichlobenil 5,100
Gibberellic acid 4,800
Propachlor 4,800
Barban 4,500
Isopropalin 4,000
Alachlor 4,000
MPMT 2,900
Ethephon 2,700
Naptalam 2,500
CDEC 1,600
Naphthalene acetic acid (and salts) 1,600
Bladex® 1,400
MCPP (and salts) 1,200
Igrart® 900
MCPB, sodium salt 800
Propazine 800
Monuron-TCA 500
Terbacil 500
Triallate 500
Kerb® 400
Acrolein 300
Cypromid 300
Ferrous sulfate 300
Prometone 300
CMA 200
Succinic acid 2,2-dimethyl hydrazide 200
MCPPA 160
Terbutol 140
Ammonia 110
Chloramben 100
362
-------
TABLE B-II (Continued)
Pesticide
Quantity
(Ib AI)
TART C: FUNGICIDES AND WOOD PRESERVATIVES
I'esticide
PART D: MISCELLANEOUS
Total:
Copper
r.ippor sulfate/pentahydrate
IHL'olatan
Ditlmne M-45^
Isopropyl alcohol
Lime sulfur
Maneb
Captan
7.ineb
Copper sulfate
Copper oxychloride sulfate
PCNB
Zinc sulphate
DCNA
Dyrene
Chloroneb
Polyram?
Copper naphthenate
Thiram
Ferbam
Nabam
Benorayl®
Sodium polysulfide
Ziram
PCP
Dexon9
Biphenyl
Terrazole®
Chlorothalonil
2-chloro-4-phenylphenol
Copper-zinc sulfate complex
Roccal®
Glyodin
Dichlone
Karathane®
Metham
Folpet
Copper dihydrazinium sulfate
Dodine
Streptomycin
Benzalkonium chloride
Copper linoleate
Orthophenylphenol
2-Aminobutane
Copper oleate
Streptomycin sulfate
Triphenyltin hydroxide
Nabac
Beta-naphthol
Cadmium succinate
Calomel
Ortho benzylparachlorophenol
,964
592
506
283
264
216
161
161
115
112
95
85
53
46
21
20
19
19
18
18
18
16
15
14
12
12
7
7
6
6
6
5
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
,960 Ib AT
,800
,100
,200
,400
,200
,300
,100
,100
,600
,700
,200
,700
,000
,000
,400
,900
,200
,900
,500
,300
,300
,000
,700
,300
,300
,900
,400
,900
,900
,800
,200
,700
,100
,000
,900
,400
, 300
,100
,000
850
800
500
500
400
400
300
300
280
200
190
170
150
120
Total:
a/ It is believed BTB should be ETC, a fungicide.
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Petroleum oil unclassified
Sulfur
Mercury treated seed--not included
in state or county totals
Petroleum oil unclassified
Aromatic petroleum solvents
Calcium hydroxide
Mineral oil
Xylene (and related compounds)
Borax
Petroleum distillates
Alkylarylpolyoxyethylene
Free fatty acids and/or amine salts
Copper hydroxide
Alkylarylpolyoxyethylene ether
Alkylarylpolyoxy glycol
Dialkylbenzene dicarboxylate
Glycol ethers
Propylene glycol
Bentonite
Casein
Alkylarylpolyether alcohol
Phthalic glycerol alkyd
Arsenic acid
Sodium sulforicinoleate
Isooctylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol
Alkyl (C 10-C 18)- omega hydroxypoly
(oxethylene) sulfate
Polyethylene glycol, dodecyl ester
Copper salts of fatty and rosin acids
Calcium carbonate
Potassium oleate
Poly-1-p-menthene
Alkylpolyoxyethylene ether
Zinc
Dulcite
Trimethyl nonanolethylene oxide complex
Dibasic ammonium phosphate
Chlorobenzene
Mixed amide-amine oleate fatty acids
and polyamines
Dichloro-s-triazinetrione
Cadmium sebacate
Piperonyl butoxide, tech.
Alkylarylpolyoxyethylene ethanol
Alkylaryl sulfonates
Diglycerides of fatty acids
Alkylolecin aromatic polymers
Potassium abietate
1,3-Propane diol
Citric acid
Sec-butylphenoxypolypropylene
oxypolyethylenoxyethanol
107
27
19
16
16
7
7
4
3
1
1
ex
Quant i I y
(Ib AI)
,938,490 Ib /I
,924,800
,119,300
,591,000
,584,200
,963,900
,540,200
,379,600
,225,500
,271,700
,165,000
490,500
408,300
213,500
144,900
140,300
79,200
76,700
75,100
51,100
38,200
31,100
30,800
29,500
28,100
22,300
21,100
20,900
20,600
18,900
15,500
15,400
12,900
10,500
10,200
9,300
8,200
8,000
7,000
6,600
6,500
6,000
5,900
5,800
5,700
5,700
5,300
4,700
4,400
4,200
4,000
363
-------
TABLE B-II (Concluded)
Pesticide
Quantity
(Ib AI)
Pesticide
Quan t Lt y
.(Ib AI)
Sud mm ni trate
Siuliuin sulfonates 3 300
c'lu-onut diethanolamide 3,800
llux.tliydric alcohol 3,000
Phosphoproteins 2,900
Alkylbenzene sulfonic acid 2,800
Alkyphenoxypolyethoxy ethanol 2,800
Sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate 2,700
Lactose 2,500
2-Propene-l,l-dioldiacetate 2,500
Sodium hypochlorite 2,300
Alkylpolyglycol ether 2,200
Triethylene glycol 2,200
Triethylene glycol 2,200
Allv., Iphenylpolyethoxy ethanol 2,100
Trimethylnonyl ether of polyethylene
glycol 2,100
Nonionic surfactant 2,000
Iron 1,900
Chlor-flurenol 1,800
Sodium salt of oleic, linoleic,
and resin acids 1,800
Ethyl alcohol 1,700
Carbon 1,600
2-Butoxyethanol 1,500
EDTA-tetrasodium salt 1,500
Manganese sulfate 1,500
Vegetable oil 1,300
Octylphenoxypolyethoxy ethanol 900
Sodium sulfate diethylene glycol
abietate 900
Benzoyl chloride hydrazone 800
Nonylphenol ethylene oxide adduct 800
Coconut diethanolamide 700
A-/p-nonylphenyl/-omegahydroxypoly/
oxyethylene 600
Calcium salts of casein and soy 600
Sorbitol 600
Aluminum sulfate 500
Soap 500
Synthetic vinyl resin 500
Triethanolamine salt of alkyl sulfonate 500
Polymethylene-p-nonylphenylpolyoxy-
ethylene propanol 450
Amino acids and atnino salts 400
2-P-cymenol, chloroethyl ester 400
Ferric sulfate 400
Methyl-9-hydroxyfluorene-9-carboxylate 400
Trisodium phosphate 400
Methyl-2,3-dichloro-9-hydroxyfluorene
-9-carboxylate 300
Molybdenum 300
N-octylbicycloheptanedicarboximide 300
Potassium lysalbinate 300
'Sawdust 300
Laurie diethanolamine condensate 200
Manganese 200
Oleic acid 200
Phosphorus pentoxide 200
Potassium laurate 200
Potassium tnyristate 200
Alpha(p-nonyl phenyl)-omega-hydroxy-poly
(oxyethylene) sulfate 170
Alkylamine acetate 150
Alkylpolyethylene glycol ether 150
Polyhydric alcohol 150
Morpholine ester of abietic and oleic acids 140
Terpineols 140
Modified phthalic glycerol alkyd resin 120
Dried blood 110
Hydroxyethyl cellulose 110
Ammonium caselnate 100
364
-------
TABLE B-III
REPORT OF PERSISTENT PESTICIDES SOLD IN FLORIDA. 6 APRIL - 31 DECEMBER 1972^
Pesticide
Aldrin
Arsenic and Its Compounds
BHC
Chlordane
ODD (IDE)
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Lindane
Mercury and Its Compounds
Mi rex
Quantity AI
As Solid, Pounds
247,129
533,425
27,285
909,549
5,070
78,902
21,019
17,985
122,580
14,676
6,031
504
Sold
As Liquid, Gallons
106,281
—
1.25
59.63
—
—
2,592
—
-_
1
—
_ —
365
-------
TABLE B-IV
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE CONSUMPTION IN THE STRUCTURAL
PEST CONTROL INDUSTRY IN HAWAII, 1972*?
Quantity
Pesticide (1,,000 Ib AI)
Aldrin 100.0
Baygon® 8.0
Chlordane 125.0
Chlorpyrifos 5.0
Diazinon 7.0
Dichlorvos 6.0
Dieldrin 16.0
Heptachlor 13.5
Malathion 4.0
Pentachlorophenol 15.0
Pyrenone® 3.0
Sulfuryl Fluoride 158.6
Miscellaneous 13.0
TOTAL: 474.1
a/ Data adapted from Ref. 99.
366
-------
TABLE B-V
PESTICIDE USAGE FOR CROPS
CANYON COUNTY. IDAHO-1972g/
A. INSECTICIDES
Quantity
Pesticide (1000 Ib AI)
Aldicarb !•!
A z inpho smethy1 0.8
Bacillus Thuringiensis 0.4
Carbophenothion 2.8
Chlordimeform 10.4
DDT 4•9
Deraeton 12.9
Diazinon 8.7
Dicofol 5.9
Dimethoate 2.4
Disulfoton 17.3
DNOC 24.7
Dyfonate® 6-4
Endosulfan 17.9
Ethion 0.3
Imidan® 1.1
Malathion 20.9
Methorny1 3.2
Methyl Parathion 18.3
Mevinphos 0.2
Naled 12.1
Oxydemeton-methyl 5.8
Parathion 11.5
Perthane® 0.5
Proparagite 3.3
TEPP 3.0
Toxaphene 4.7
Trichlorfon 49.5
Total Insecticides 251.0
a/ Data adapted from Ref. 100.
367
-------
TABLE B-V (Concluded)
B. HERBICIDES
Pesticide
, Quantity
(1000 Ib AI)
Alachlor
Atrazine
Benefin
Bromoxynil
Chloroxuron
Chlorpropham
Cycloate
2,4,-D
2,4,-DB
DCPA
Dicamba
Diquat®
EPIC
Linuron
Nitralin
Nitrofen
Pebulate
Phenmedipham
Propachlor
Pyrazon
Simazine
Terbacil
Trifluralin
Total Herbicides
458.1
C. FUNGICIDES
Pesticide
Dithane®
Maneb
Polyram®
Sulfur
Triphenyltim hydroxide
Zineb
Quantity
(1000 Ib AI)
Total Fungicides:
76.2
368
-------
TABLE B-VI
AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE USAGE
IN ILLINOIS.
A. INSECTICIDES
Quantity
Pesticide (1000 Ib AI)
B. HERBICIDES
Aldrin
Bux-Ten®
Carbofuran
Chlordane
Dasanit
Diazinon
Dyfonate
Heptachlor
Malathion
Methoxychlor
Phorate
Toxaphene
2,260.0
343.4
607,
123.
,3
,2
®
45.8
627.1
194.0
377.4
48.8
33.8
856.8
26.0
Total Insecticides: 5,543.6
Pesticide
Alachlor
Amiben
Atrazine
Butylate
CDAA
Dicamba
2,4-D
EPTC
Linuron
Propachlor
Simazine
Trifluralin
Vernolate
Quantity
(1000 Ib AI)
1,941.8
3,055.5
5,059.1
1,825.9
180.0
21.4
1,108.6
90.0
436.8
3,640.3
93.8
1,588.0
1,525.3
Total Herbicides: 20,566.5
al MRI estimates based in part on data from Ref. 101.
369
-------
TABLE B-VII
AGRICULTURAL USAGE OF PESTICIDES
IN INDIANA. 19703/
A. INSECTICIDES
Pesticide
Aldrin
Azinphosmethyl
Bux-Ten®
Carbaryl
Diazinon
Heptachlor
Malathion
Methoxychlor
Phorate
Quantity
(1000 Ib AI)
2,271.7
0.5
22.8
9.7
57.1
268.5
36.0
11.1
10.5
Total Insecticides
2,687.9
B. HERBICIDES
Pesticide
Alachlor
Atrazine
Chloramben
2,4-D
EPTC
Linuron
Propachlor
Trifluralin
Vernolate
Total Herbicides
Quantity
(1000 Ib AI)
311.7
4,308.2
696.8
469.7
47.7
61.6
1,196.7
171.0
35.0
7,298.4
a/ MRI estimates based in part on data from Ref. 102,
370
-------
TABLE B-VIII
1973 RURAL INSECTICIDE AND HERBICIDE USAGE
160 FARMERS-JOHNSON COUNTY, IQWAJ/
A. INSECTICIDES
Quantity
Pesticide ^1000 Ib AI)
Aldrin
BHC
Bux-Ten®
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Chlordane
Coumaphos
,Dasanit
Diazinon
Dichlorvos
Dyfonate®
Endosulfan
Heptachlor
Lindane
Malathion
Methoxgchlor
Phorate
Ronne 1
Toxaphene
Trichlorfon
Total Insecticides
C. FUNGICIDES^/
Pesticide
Captan
Zineb
Total Fungicides
5.5
< 0.01
1.2
0.05
2.8
< 0.01
< 0.01
1.6
< 0.01
0.08
2.4
0.1
5.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
2.0
0.3
0.2
< 0.01
21.8
Quantity
Qb. AI)
10.50
3.75
14.25
B. HERBICIDES
Pesticide
Alachlor
Amiben
Atrazine
Bladex®
Butylate
Chlorbromuron
Chlorpropham
2,4-D
Dicaraba
EPTC
Linuron
Paraquat
Picloram
Propachlor
Sencor®
Simazine
2,4,5-T
Trifluralin
Total Herbicides
Quantity
(1000 Ib AI)
17.5
9.4
35.8
3.1
15.0
0.2
0.1
(150)
1
0
0
1
0
0.04
9.4
0.1
0.04
0.8
3.0
97.7
a/ MRI estimates based in part on data from Ref. 103.
]>/ It is believed Colbex should be Cobex®, made by U.S. Borax.
Formulation was not known--amount is in pounds as reported and
is not included in total.
£/ Fungicide usage is for 1968 and is expressed in actual pounds.
371
-------
TABLE B-IX
ESTIMATED POUNDS AND GALLONS OF COMMERCIAL FORMULATIONS OF SIX RESTRICTED
PESTICIDES PERMITTED FOR SALE IN MARYLAND AS OF MARCH 15, 1971
MRI Estimate
(lb) (gal.) (lb AI)
Aldrin 179,650 17,482 105,858
Chlordane 114,355 39,302 208,668
Dieldrin 26,806 6,408 13,084
Endrin 505 3,000 6,010
Lindane 15,365 3,123 10,087
BHC 3,000 4,810 20,440
372
-------
TABLE B-X
PESTICIDE SALES REPORTED BY LICENSED DEALERS IN MICHIGAN
FOR THE YEAR 1972105/
Pesticide
Aldrin
Calcium Arsenate
Calcium Cyanide
Cyano (Methylmercuri) Guanidine
DDT
Demeton
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Lead Arsenate
Mercuric Chloride
Mercurous Chloride
Mercury
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Parathion
Mevinphos
Parathion
Phenylmercuric Acetate
Phosphorus
Sodium Arsenite
9 lium Fluoroacetate
.. .rychnine
TDK (DDD)
Tetraethyl Pyrophosphate (TEPP)
Zinc Phosphide
Sales Reported (Ib AI) 1972
29,111
500
541
726
66
19,604
11,745
5
130
263,840
130
292
216
7,889
3,061
3,856
118,737
2,771
0.1
24,165
0.5
0.3
3,187
1,732
556
a/ Source: Michigan Department of Agriculture, Plant Industry Division.
373
-------
TABLE B-XI
AGRICULTURAL USAGE OF PESTICIDES
IN MICHIGAN, 1970g7
A. INSECTICIDES
Quantity
Pesticide (1,000 Ib AI)
Aldrin
Azinphosmethy1
Carbaryl
Diazinon
Malathion
Methoxychlor
Total Insecticides 509.7
B. HERBICIDES
Quantity
Pesticide (1,000 Ib AI)
Alachlor 43.4
Atrazine 2,322.9
Chloramben 88.1
2,4-D 172.6
Linuron 129.2
MCPA 32.6
Propachlor 40.5
Trifluralin 3.6
Total Herbicides 2,832.9
at MRI estimates based in part on data from Ref. 102.
374
-------
TABLE B-XII
AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE USAGE IN MINNESOTA. 1972g/
A. INSECTICIDES
Organic Phosphates
Quantity
Pesticide (1,000 Ib AI)
Azinphosmethyl 30.5
Diazinon 81.8
Dimethoate 2.5
Disulfoton 26.8
Dyfonate® 2.3
Fensulfothion 93.7
Malathion 0.4
Mevinphos 0.5
Phorate 356.3
Prophos 85.2
Trichlorfon 3.0
Subtotal 683.0
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Quantity
Pesticide (1,000 Ib AI)
Aldrin 73.4
Chlordane 36.4
Endosulfan 14.9
Toxaphene 41.0
Subtotal 165.7
Carbamates
Quantity
Pesticide (1,000 Ib AI)
Bux-Ten® 259.4
Carbaryl 272.2
Carbofuran 576.2
Subtotal 1,107.8
Total Insecticides: 1,956.5
B. HERBICIDES
Quantity
Pesticide (1,000 Ib AI)
Alachlor 1,256.3
Amiben 1,430.7
Atrazine 3,082.5
Bladex® 81.6
Butylate 403.2
Barban 26.9
2,4-D 1,462.9
Dalapon 44.9
Dial late 62.0
Dicamba 38.0
Dinoseb 3.0
Endothall 2.5
EPTC 111.2
Linuron 58 . 9
MCPA 390.2
MCPB 7.5
Phenmedipham 1 . 3
Preforan® 87.8
Propachlor 3,614.9
TCA 292.5
Triallate 71.0
Trifluralin 586.4
Total Herbicides: 13,116.2
C. FUNGICIDES
Quantity
Pesticides (1,000 Ib AI)
Difolaton® 15.3
Dithane M-45® 95.8
Maneb 100.6
Polyram® 23.0
Thiabendazole 0.5
Triphenyltin Hydroxidel3.7
Total Fungicides: 248.9
a/ MRI estimates based in part on data from Ref. 106.
375
-------
TABLE B-XIII
INSECTICIDE USAGE IN MISSISSIPPI. 1972J2I/
Insecticide Quantity (1,000 Ib AI)
DDT 7,000
Methyl Parathion 12,000
Toxaphene 17.000
Total 36,000
376
-------
TABLE B-XIV
ESTIMATED PESTICIDE USAGE ON ALL MAJOR CROPS IN WASHINGTON. BOLIVAR,
AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. 19721/
Quantity
Pesticide
A. INSECTICIDES
Aldicarb
Azinphosmethyl
Azodrin®
Bidrin®
Carbaryl
DDD
DDT
Dicofol
Dimethoate
Disulfoton
Endrin
Malathion
Methyl Parathion
Phorate
Strobane®
Toxaphene
Totals:
Estimated by
County Agents
84,000
9,000
97,200
44,000
27,200
325,000
2,795,000
300
5,000
56,900
13,600
10,000
1,705,500
40,500
22,000
6.390.000
11,625,200
Estimates by
Farmers
11,803
70,820
156
5,452,920
3,246
29,900
7,776
2,093,122
10.157.400
17,827,143
a/ Data adapted from Ref. 108.
377
-------
TABLE B-XIV (Continued)
Pesticide
Quantity
Estimated by
County Agents
Estimates by
Farmers
B. HERBICIDES
Alachlor
Amiben
Chloroxuron
2,4-D
Dalapon
2,4-DB
Dinitrophenol
Diuron
DSMA
Dyanap
EPIC
Fluometuron
Linuron
Molinate
Monuron
MSMA
Nitralin
Norea
Paraquat
Prometryne
Propanil
Silvex
2,4,5-T
Trifluralin
Vernolate
Totals:
20,000
9,600
6,000
11,500
70,000
30,000
210,000
151,500
5,000-
20,000
400
220,000
150,000
10,000
29,700
1,490,000
157,000
50,000
10,000
40,000
100,000
500
21,500
529,000
2.000
3,343,700
664,961
37,825
472,072
1,751,880
156,000
39,000
713,226
3,834,964
378
-------
TABLE B-XIV (Concluded)
Quantity
Estimated by Estimates by
Pesticide County Agents Farmers
C. DEFOLIANTS
DEF Noles 325,000 60,669
Leaf-Drop 50,000
Sodium Chlorate 390,000 1,677,757
Shed-A-Leaf 45,000
Val-Drop 575.000 70.820
Totals: 1,385,000 1,809,246
379
-------
TABLE B-XV
HERBICIDE USAGE BY MONTANA COUNTY WEED DISTRICTS
FOR PERENNIAL WEED CONTROL, 1972^
Quantity
Pesticide (1.000 Ib AI)
2,4-D 0.8
2,4-D amine 286.0
2.4-D ester 36.9
Dicamba 2.8
Picloram 4.9
2,4,5-T 6.6.
Total Herbicides: 338.0
a/ Data adapted from Ref. 109.
380
-------
TABLE B-XVI
SOUTH CAROLINA PESTICIDE USAGE,
Pesticide
Insecticide - Organophosphorus
Azinphosmethyl and Ethyl
Azodrin®
Malathion
Methyl Parathion
Parathion
Phorate
Insecticides - Organo-Chlorine
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Endosulfan
Mirex
TDE (ODD)
Toxaphene
Insecticide - Carbamate
Carbaryl
Furadan®/Temik® (Carbofuran/Aldicarb)
Lannate® (Methomyl)
Fungicides
Copper Sulfate
Ferbam
Maneb
Sulfur
Nematocides
Estimated Range of Pesticide
Use (Ib AI)
50,000
50,000
250,000
1,000,000
75,000
12,000
75,000
100,000
275,000
1,250,000
100,000
15,000
75,000 - 100,000
50,000 - 75,000
1,250,000 - 1,500,000
20,000 - 40,000
850 - 1,000
None
2,750,000 - 3,250,000
300,000 -
10,000 -
15,000 -
500,000
15,000
25,000
40,000 - 80,000
90,000 - 110,000
60,000 - 75,000
1,500,000 - 2,500,000
DBCP
DB
Methyl Bromide
Mocap®/Dasinit® (Prophos/Fensulfothion)
50,000
1,250,000
300,000
30,000
75,000
1,500,000
400,000
50,000
381
-------
TABLE B-XVI (Concluded)
Estimated Range of Pesticide
Pesticide Use (Ib AI)
Herbicides
Atrazine 150,000 - 200,000
Chloroxuron 40,000 - 80,000
Def®/Folex Type 125,000 - 175,000
Diuron 40,000 - 80,000
Fatty Alcohols 200,000 - 300,000
Lasso® (Alachlor) 50,000 - 75,000
Herban® (Norea) 120,000 - 160,000
MH-30® 150,000 - 200,000
MSMA 50,000 - 60,000
Phenoxy's 100,000 - 200,000
Trifluralin 200,000 - 300,000
382
-------
TABLE B-XV1I
PRINCIPAL COTTON INSECTICIDES AND ESTIMATED
AMOUNTS USED IN THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY. TEXAS - 1972-g/
Quantity
Insecticide (1000 Ib AI)
Azodrin® 750
Ethyl Parathion 1,000
Methyl Parathion 7,000
Toxa phene 4,000
(Galecron®, Sevin®, Fundal®, 250
Bidrin®, Systox®, et al)
Total Insecticides 13,000
al Data adapted from Ref. 111.
383
-------
TABLE B-XVIII
ESTIMATES OF PESTICIDE USAGE IN UTAH, 1971^
a/
A. INSECTICIDES
Organic Phosphates
Quantity
Pesticide (1.000 Ib AI)
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Azinphosmethyl
Ciodrin®
Coumaphos
Diazinon
Dimethoate
Disulfoton
Ethion
Famphur
Fenthion
Imidan®
Malathion
Methyl Parathion
Naled
Oxydemetonmethy1
Parathion
Phorate
Ronnel
Trichlorfon
Miscellaneous
Subtotal:
Pesticide
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dicofol
Dieldrin
Endosulfan
Heptachlor
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Miscellaneous
Subtotal:
Carbamates
Pesticide
Baygon®
Carbaryl
Methomyl
Zectran
Subtotal:
Quantity
(1,000 Ib AI)
2.2
45.4
11.0
1.6
3.5
2.8
3.4
1.5
2.4
4.3
0.7
78.8
Quantity
(1,000 Ib AI)
0.4
12.1
0.5
0.1
13.1
384
-------
TABLE B-XVIII (Concluded)
A. INSECTICIDES (con't.)
Inorganic Chemicals
Quantity
Pesticide (1.000 Ib AI)
Arsenic Trioxide
Calcium Arsenate
Lead Arsenate
Sodium Fluosilicate
Sulfur
Subtotal
Miscellaneous
Pesticide
Quantity
(1.000 Ib AI).
Fundal SP
Kara thane®
Metaldehyde
Morestan®
Omite®
Rotenone
Subtotal:
1.5
2.1
1.6
0.2
1.1
4.9
11.4
Total Insecticides: 364.3
B. HERBICIDES
Pesticide
Amitrole
Atrazine
Bromacil
Chloroxuron
Cycloate
Dalapon
DCPA
Dicamba
Dinoseb
EDB
EPTC
Igran®
Monuron
Picloram
Prometone
Silvex
Simazine
Sodium Chlorate
Sodium Metaborate
2,4-D
2,4-DB
2,4,5-T
Trifluralin
2,3,6 TEA
TCA
Miscellaneous
Quantity
(1,000 Ib AI)
26.0
65.5
3.4
8.0
26.0
4.4
9.0
4.9
2.5
288.0
6.2
6.4
3.2
2.6
10.1
14.0
16.2
8.4
10.5
200.0
1.4
28.0
32.8
4.0
0.9
6.0
Total Herbicides: 788.4
a/ Data adapted from Ref. 112.
385
-------
TABLE B-XIX
AGRICULTURAL USAGE OF PESTICIDES IN WISCONSIN, 19705/
A. INSECTICIDES
Pesticide
Aldrin
Bux-Ten®
Carbaryl
Diazinon
Heptachlor
Malathion
Phorate
Quantity
(1000 Ib AI)
Total Insecticides:
574.1
B. HERBICIDES
Pesticide
Alachlor
Atrazine
Chloramben
2,4-D
Linuron
MCPA
Propachlor
Trifluralin
Quantity
(1000 Ib AI)
350.3
3,372.3
22.3
217.0
17.1
43.2
93.5
8.4
Total Herbicides
4,124.1
a/ MRI estimates based in part on data from Ref. 102.
386
-------
APPENDIX C
LIST OF FEDERAL/STATE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
SERVICE OFFICIALS. STATE OFFICIALS. AND OTHER
EXPERTS CONTACTED IN THE SURVEY PER CHAPTER III. SECTION C
387
-------
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the many in-
dividuals who contributed data and information to this phase of the
study.
T. S. Aasheim, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
Montana State University
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Dr. Roland H. Abraham, Director
Agricultural Extension Service
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Dr. John L. Adams, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebraska 68503
Dr. R. J. Aldrich
Associate Dean, College of Agriculture
University of Missouri
Columbia, Missouri 65201
Ar. Carlos Gaztambide Arrillaga
Extension Dairyman—Leader
Agricultural Extension Service
University of Puerto Rico
Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico 00928
Dr. Elmer L. Ashburn
Assistant Professor
Plant and Soil Science
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee 37901
Dr. C. E. Barnhart
Director, Cooperative Extension Service
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
E. H. Bates
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Maine
Orono, Maine 04473
Dr. Ernest C. Bay
Professor and Chairman
Department of Entomology
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742
Dr. J. Richard Beattie
Associate Dean & Associate Director
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Mass. 01002
Dr. K. 0. Bell, Jr.
Survey Entomologist
Kansas State Board of Agriculture
State Office Building
Topeka, Kansas 66612
Dr. Stelmon E. Bennett
Professor and Head
Cooperative Extension Work
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tenn. 37901
Dr. Wayne L. Berndt
Extension Pesticide Coordinator
Cooperative Extension Service
South Dakota State University
Brookings, South Dakota 57006
Dr. Frank G. Bieberly
Extension Specialist, Crops and Soils
Cooperative Extension Service
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
Dr. Delbert L. Bierlein
Pesticide Education Specialist
Cooperative Extension Service
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802 .
Dr. W. D. Bishop
Dean of Agricultural Extension Service
The University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tenn. 37901
Dr. Billie D. Blair
Extension Entomologist
Cooperative Extension Service
Ohio .>tate University
Columbus, Ohio 43210
Dr. Bert L. Bohmont
Agricultural Chemicals Coordinator
Cooperative Extension Service
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colo. 80521
Dr. D. W. Bohmont
Director, Agricultural Experiment Station
University of Nevada
Reno, Nevada 89507
Dr. W. M. Bost
Director, Cooperative Extension Service
Mississippi State University
State College, Miss. 39762
Dr. James S. Bowman
Cooperative Extension Service
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire 03824
James E. Brogdon
Extension Entomologist
Florida Cooperative Extension Service
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32601
388
-------
Appendix
Continued
H. L. Bruer, Director
Division of Plant Industries
State of Tennessee Department of Agriculture
Ellington Agricultural Center
Box 40627, Melrose Station
Nashville, Tenn. 37204
Dr. Earl R. Burns
Specialist in Weed Control
Cooperative Extension Service
Auburn University
Auburn, Ala. 36830
Dr. J. N. Busby
Dean, Agricultural Extension
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32601
Joe Capizzi
Extension Entomologist
Cooperative Extension Service
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
Charles E. Caudill
Agricultural Statistician in Charge
Texas Crop and Livestock Reporting Service
Austin, Texas 78767
Dr. J. B. Claar
Director, Cooperative Extension Service
University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Dr. B. L. Coffindaffer
Director, Cooperative Extension Service
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506
Doyle Connor, Commissioner
Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services
Mayo Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
J. A. Cox, Director
Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
%
Paul D. Crisp, Administrator
Feed and Pesticide Section
Division of Inspection
Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Luis A. Cruz Cruz
Director, Analysis and Registration of
Agricultural Materials Laboratory
Department of Agriculture
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908
R. P. Davison
Director, Extension Service
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Dr. Elwyn E. Deal
Assistant Director
Agricultural Programs
Cooperative Extension Service
College Park, Maryland 20742
Henry DeSalvo, Director
Division of Feeds
Fertilizers & Pesticides
Arkansas State Plant Board
P. 0. Box 1069
Little Rock, Arkansas 77203
Dr. J. E. Dewey
Department of Entomology
New York State College of Agriculture
Cornell University
Ithaca, N. Y. 14850
Dr. Donald W. Dickson
Assistant Extension Nematologist
Florida Cooperative Extension Service
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32601
Dr. H. G. Diesslin
Director, Agricultural Extension Service
Purdue University
Lafayette, Indiana 47907
John C. Dreves, Assistant Chief
Plant Industry Division
Department of Agriculture
Lansing, Michigan 48913
John J. Durkin
Extension Entomologist
Cooperative Extension Service
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003
Dr. C. P. Ellington
Director of Agricultural Extension
The University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30601
Alan C. Epps, Planning Specialist
Natural Resource & Land use
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Alsaka
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Dr. Luther L. Farrar
Extension Plant Pathologist & Nematologist
Cooperative Extension Service
Auburn University
Auburn, Ala. 36830
Dr. Newton W. Flora
Extension Entomologist
Cooperative Extension Service
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Okla. 74074
C. H. Frommer, Director
Bureau of Pesticide Control
New York State Department of *
Environmental Conservation
Albany, N. Y. 12201
389
-------
Appendix
Continued
Dr. C. D. Funk, Associate Director
Cooperative Extension Service
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84321
Dr. J. D. Furrer
Extension Agronomist
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NB 68503
Dr. Alvin F. Gale
Pesticide Specialist
Agricultural Extension Service
University of Wyoming
Laramine, Wyoming 82070
Dr. Arthur Gall
Extension Entomologist
University of Maine
310 Deering Hall
Orono, Maine 04473
Dr. J. L. Gerwig
Director, Cooperative Extension Service
Rutgers - The State University
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
Dr. K. A. Gilles
Vice President for Agriculture
North Dakota State University of Agriculture
Fargo, North Dakota 58102
Dr. Wayne J. Golberg
Assistant Director
Agriculture and Community Development
Cooperative Extension Service
North Dakota State University
Fargo, N. Dak. 58102
Dr. E. E. Golden, Assistant Director
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Dr. J. L. Graves, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho 83843
Dr. S. M. Gwinn, Director
Agricultural Extension Service
The University of Delaware
Newark, Delaware 19711
Raymond R. Hancock
State Statistician
Kansas Crop and Livestock Reporting Service
Kansas State Board of Agriculture
Topeka, Kansas 66601
Dr. Phillip K. Harein
Extension Entomologist
Agricultural Extension Service
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, Minn. 55101
Dr. M. C. Heckel, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire 03824
Dr. N. W. Hilston, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Whoming
Laramie, Wyoming 82070
C. A. Hines
Agricultural Statistician in Charge
Michigan Crop Reporting Service
Lansing, Michigan 48904
Dr. Garlyn 0. Hoffman
Range Brush & Weeds Control Specialist
Agricultural Extension Service
Texas A & M University
College Station, Texas 77843
Robert Horn, Head
Management Service
Cooperative Extension Service
Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama 36830
Dr. G. E. Hull
Director, Agricultural Extension Service
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
Dr. Harold R. Hurst
Extension Agronomist - Weeds
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Arkansas
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
Dr. J. E. Hutchison, Director
Agricultural Extension Service
Texas A & M University
College Station, Texas 77843
Dr. M. J. Jackson
Extension Agronomist, Weed Control
Cooperative Extension Service
Montana State University
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Dr. Louis A. Jensen
Extension Agronomist (Weeds)
Cooperative Extension Service
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322
Dr. E. W. Jones
Dean, University Extension
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
R. R. Jones Director
Cooperative Extension Service
Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama 36830
Dr. C. R. Jordan, Head
Extension Entomology Department
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Georgia College of Agriculture
Athens, GA 30601
390
-------
Appendix
Continued
Dr. David L. Keith
Extension Entomologist
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebraska 68503
James R. Kendall
Agricultural Statistician in Chf-rge
Illinois Cooperative Crop Reporting Service
P. O. Box 429
Springfield, Illinois 62705
Dr. E. J. Kersting
College of Agriculture and
Natural Resources
The University of Connecticut
Storrs, Conn. 06268
James Y. Kim
Chief, Weed Branch
Department of Agriculture
Honolulu, Hawaii 96814
John Kirkpatrick, Director
Division of Agricultural Chemistry
State Department of Agriculture
Beard Building
Montgomery, Alabama 36109
Dr. L. R. Kolmer, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
Dr. Roy M. Kottman, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210
Dr. R. E. Larson
Director, Agricultural Extension
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
Dr. Roy J. Ledbetter
Extension Entomologist
Cooperative Extension Service
Auburn University
Auburn, Ala. 36830
Dr. J. Leyendecker, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003
Dr. John L. Libby
Extension Entomologist
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wise. 53706
Art G. Losey
Assistant Supervisor
Grain & Chemical Division
Washington Department of Agriculture
Olympia, WA 98504
Dr. W. H. Luckmann, Head
Section of Economic Entomology
University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Dr. George B. MacCollom
Extension Entomologist
The Extension Service
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT 05401
Dr. Dave Matthew
Extension Entomologist
Pesticide Co-Cordinator
Cooperative Extension Service
Purdue University
Lafayette, Indiana 47907
Dr. J. W. Matthews, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
Department of Agriculture
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Dr. John S. McDaniel
Extension Specialist in Agricultural Chemicals
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Delaware
Newark, Delaware 19711
Dr. G. S. Mclntyre, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
Murray L. McKay
Pesticide Inspector
Pesticide Control Board
New Hampshire Department of Agriculture
Concord, N. H. 03301
Dr. Robert L. Metcalf
Department of Entomology
University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Dr. Gerald R. Miller
Extension Agronomist
Agricultural Extension Service
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, Minn. 55101
J. P. Miller, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
Washington State University
Pullman, Wash. 99163
E. Edsel Moore, Director
Pesticide Program
Environmental Services
Department for Human Resources
275 East Main St.
Frankfort, KY 40601
Dr. Leon Moore
Extension Entomologist
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
391
-------
Appendix
Continued
Dr. Steve Moore, III
Extension Specialist in Entomology
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Illinois
Urbana, 111. 61801
Dr. Wayne T. O'Dell, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina 29631
Robert F. Odom, Jr.
Supervisor, Agricultural Pesticide
Applicators Div.
Louisiana Department of Agriculture
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Dr. Louis T. Palmer
Extension Plant Pathologist
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebr. 68503
Earl L. Park
Agricultural Statistician in Charge
Indiana Crop and Livestock
Reporting Service
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Ind. 47907
Dr. Mario E. Perez-Escolar
Associate Director
Agricultural Experiment Station
University of Puerto Rico
Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico 00928
Dr. H. B. Petty
Extension Entomologist
University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Dr. John E. Swift, Extension Entomologist
Statewide Coordinator-Pesticides
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Dr. Roland W. Portman
Extension Entomologist
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho 93843
Dr. Jack D. Price, Leader
Agricultural Chemicals
Agricultural Extension Service
Texas ASM University
College Station, Texas 77843
Dr. L. H. Purdy, Chairman
Plant Pathology Department
University of Florida
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Gainesville, Florida 32601
Dr. David O. Quinn
State Extension Program Leader -
Safe Use of Pesticides & Chemicals
Cooperative Extension Service
West Virginia University
Morgantown, W. Va. 26506
Dr. Stuart R. Race
Extension Specialists
Cooperative Extension Service
Rutgers - The State University
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
Dr. Arthur H. Retan
Extension Entomologist
Cooperative Extension Service
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington 99163
Dr. J. A. Reynolds
Extension Leader
Cooperative Extension Service
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
Dr. Charles H. Rust
Program Coordinator
Cooperative Extension Service
Montana State University
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Ralph Salisbury
Publications Specialist
Cooperative Extension Service
Oregon State University
Coryallis, Oregon 97331
Dr. Milton G. Savos
Extension Entomologist
Cooperative Extension Service
Univrrsity of Connecticut
Storrs, Conn. 06268
R. E. Schooley
Agricultural Statistician Acting in Charge
Wisconsin Statistical Reporting Service
Madison, Wise. 53705
Dr. Hervey L. Sharpe, Chairman
Editorial Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32601
Dr. D. F. Shontz
Director, Cooperative Extension Service
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island 02881
Dr. W. E. Skelton
Director, Cooperative Extension Service
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061
Dr. A. A. Spielman
Director, Agricultural Extension Service
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Mass. 01002
Dr. G. J. Stadelbacher
Extension Pomologist
Cooperative Extension Work
Agriculture and Home Economics
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742
392
-------
Appendix
Concluded
Dr. D. W. Staniforth
Department of Botany & Plant Pathology
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50010
Dr. Harold J. Stockdale
Extension Entomologist
Cooperative Extension Service
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50010
Dr. G. W. Stokes, Associate Dean
College of Agriculture
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Dr. R. V. Sturgeon, Jr.
Extension Plant Pathologist
Cooperative Extension Service
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Okla. 74074
Dr. Robert I. Sullivan, Director
Division of Plant Industry
Colorado Department of Agriculture
State Services Bldg.
Denver, Colorado 80203
David N. Taylor
State Agricultural Statistician
Minnesota Crop and Livestock Reporting Service
St. Paul, Minn. 55155
Dr. C. A. Thomas
Extension Entomologist
Cooperative Extension Service
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina 29631
Dr. George W. Thomas
Extension Pesticide Chemicals Coordinator
and Entomologist
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65201
Dr. John G. Thomas
Extension Entomologist
Agricultural Extension Service
Texas A J. M University
College Station, Texas 77843
Dr. W. L. Turner
Administrative Dean for University Extension
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, N. C. 27607
Dr. G. L. VandeBerg
Director, Cooperative Extension Service
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wise. 53706
C. A. Vines, Director
Agricultural Extension Service
University of Arkansas
Little Rock, Ark. 72203
Dr. R. E. Wagner, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
Dr. G. W. Ware, Head
Department of Entomology
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
L. H. Watts, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colo. 80521
Dr. G. T. Weekman
Pesticide Coordinator
Agricultural Extension Service
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, N. C. 27607
Lewis F. Wells, Jr.
Pesticide Program Supervisor
Department of Public Health
600 Washington St., Rm. 222
Boston, Mass. 02112
Dr. J. A. Whatley, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Okla. 74074
Dr. C. P. Wilson, Director
Agricultural Extension Service
University of Hawaii
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
Dr. A. D. Worsham
Professor of Weed Control
Department of Crop Science
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, N. C. 27607
Dr. Leon J. Wrage
Extension Agronomist-Weeds
Cooperative Extension Service
South Dakota State University
Brookings, South Dakota 57006
Dr. David F. Young, Leader
Extension Entomology
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, Miss. 39762
Dr. J. O. Young, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
South Dakota State University
Brookings, South Dakota 57006
393
-------
R V R CONSULTANTS
f. O. BOX 883 BHAWNCC MISSION. KANSAS 06201
TELEPHONE 013/722.0708
ROSMARir VON RUMKER. SC. D.
June 1973
This letter addressed personally to the
Director of Cooperative Extension
in each of the 50 States, and in Puerto Rico.
Under contract #EQC 311 from the Council on Environmental Quality,
RvR Consultants are currently studying the production volumes and
use patterns of major agricultural and other pesticides in the
United States. We would like to ask for your assistance in this
project in three areas.
Firstly, would you please send us a complete set of your State's
current recommendations for the control of insects, weeds, diseases,
and other pests. We are interested in such recommendations for all
agricultural crops, fruits, vegetables, ornamentals, forest, home &
garden, livestock, and recommendations involving industrial, commer-
cial, public health and other uses of chemical pesticides.
Secondly, does any agency or individual researcher in your area
conduct studies or keep records on actual pesticide use (by quanti-
ties of pesticides, acreage treated, etc.)? If so, could you please
send us copies of reprints or reports on such studies, or advise us
where this information might be obtained. If such information has
not been published, could you please refer us to the group doing
the work so that we may contact them directly.
Thirdly, does your State have a statewide chemical pesticide co-
ordinator? If so, could you please give us his name and address?
We may need to contact him later on in this study.
We are working on this contract on a rather tight schedule and
would therefore much appreciate it if we could hear from you soon.
Many thanks in advance for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
RvR CONSULTANTS
RvRtfh
Dr. Rosmarie von Rflmker
394
-------
APPENDIX D
LIST OF U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND CONTRACTORS
WHO CONTRIBUTED TO PART OF THIS STUDY
395
-------
Three Federal Government Agencies contributed information
and advice to several phases of this study. The active interest
and cooperation of the persons listed below was most helpful and
is gratefully acknowledged.
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Paul A. Andrilenas
Economic Research Service
Washington, D. C. 20250
Dr. John H. Berry
Economic Research Service
Washington, D. C. 20250
T. R. Eichers
Economic Research Service
Washington, D. C. 20250
Dr. W. B. Ennis, Jr.
National Program Staff
Beltsville, Md. 20705
D. L. Fowler
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service
Washington, D. C.
A. S. Fox
Economic Research Service
Washington, D. C. 20250
Dr. P. C. Kearney
Agricultural Research Center
Beltsville, Md. 20705
Dr. D. E. Ketcham
Forest Service
Washington, D. C. 20250
Dr. Fred H. Tschirley
Science and Education Staff
Washington, D. C. 20250
Dr. W. C. Shaw
National Program Staff
Beltsville, Md. 20705
Dr. R. K. Smith
Forest Service
Washington, D. C. 20250
V. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs
Technical Services Division
Community Studies on Pesticides
Dr. Ben F. Barrentine, Project Director
Community Study on Pesticides
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, Miss. 39762
Dr. Victor B. Beat
Institute of Agricultural Medicine
Iowa Community Pesticides Study
The University of Iowa
Oakdale, Iowa 52319
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Continued
W. W. Benson, Project Director
Idaho Community Study on Pesticides
Department of Environmental and
Community Services
Statehouse
Boise, Idaho 83720
Dr. Arthur W. Bloomer, Project Director
Community Study on Pesticides
Department of Public Health
Lansing, Michigan 48914
Dr. Howard W. Klemmer, Project Director
University of Hawaii
3675 Kilauea Ave.
Honolulu, Hawaii 96816
Dr. David L. Mick
Community Study on Pesticides
University of Iowa
Oakdale, Iowa 52319
Dr. Fred M. Miller
Special Project Director
Texas Community Studies (Pesticides)
San Benito, Texas 78586
D'-. Donald P. Morgan
EPA Pesticides Community Studies Project
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
Lawrence M. Mounce
Principal Investigator
Community Pesticide Study
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dr. William S. Murray, Director
Technical Services Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dr. James E. Peavy
Commissioner of Health
State Department of Health
Austin, Texas 78756
Dr. S. H. Sandifer
Project Director
South Carolina Community Pesticide Study
Medical University of South Carolina
Charleston, South Carolina 29401
Dr. J. Wanless Southwick
Chief, Pesticide Program and Project Director
Utah Community Pesticide Study
Salt Lake City, Utah 84113
U. S. Tariff Commission
Ed Taylor
Synthetic Organic Chemicals Section
Washington, D. C. 20436
396
-------
R V R CONSULTANTS
f O BOX 553
SHAWNEE MISSfON KANSAS 662O1
TEIEPHONE 913/722.5796
ROSMARIE VON RiJMKER. SC. D
October 1973
This letter addressed personally to the
EPA Pesticide Community Study Directors in
Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi,
New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas, Washington.
Under Contract #EQC-311 (funded jointly by the Council on
Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency),
we are currently studying the production volumes, distribution,
use patterns and environmental impact potential of major agri-
cultural and other pesticides. RvR Consultants cooperate in
this study with the Midwest Research Institute of Kansas City,
Missouri. Pesticide uses within the scope of our project in-
clude uses on agricultural crops, livestock, forest lands, home
and garden, and for industrial, commercial, public health and
6ther pest control purposes.
We understand that pesticide use data by products, quantities
of active ingredients, and crops or other end uses have been
collected as one of the routine tasks in the Community Pesti-
cide Studies. We would much appreciate it if you would send us
such data as may be available for the state or region in which
your project operates. 1972 is the base year for our study,
but if you do not have data for that year, information for any
other recent time period would also be helpful. Please be assur-
ed that we will, of course, give appropriate credit to the
sources of data that we may use in the final report on our study.
We are working on a rather tight time schedule in this project
and would therefore be very grateful if we could hear from you
at your earliest convenience. Many thanks in advance for your
help.
Very truly yours,
RvR CONSULTANTS
Dr. Rosmarie von Rumker
RvR:fh
cc: Dr. W. S. Murray
Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
397
-------
APPENDIX E
LIST OF PESTICIDE INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES CONTACTED
IN THE SURVEY PER CHAPTER III. SECTION E
398
-------
Information and advic* were received from many pesticide
manufacturers through members of their staff and others connected
with the pesticide industry and trade. Thanks and appreciation are
expressed to all who contributed to this phase of the study.
Dr. C. A. Anderson
Chemagro Division of Baychem Corporation
Kansas City, MO 64120
Carl A. Bauer
Valley Chemical Company
Greenville, Mississippi 38701
Dr. Etcyl H. Blair
Ag-Organics Department
The Dow Chemical Company
Midland, Michigan 48640
Parke C. Brinkley
National Agricultural Chemicals Association
Washington, D. C. 20005
Richard A. Broom
FMC/Niagara Chemical Division
Middleport, New York. 14105
Dr. Lamar C. Brown
Rhodia Inc., Chipman Division
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
Ron Cheves
Rohm & Haas Company
Philadelphia, PA 19105
L. L. Coulter
Ag-Organics Department
The Dow Chemical Company
Midland, Michigan 48640
Everett R. Cowett
Agricultural Division
CIBA-Geigy Corporation
Greensboro, North Carolina 27409
Robert S. Custer
Pennwalt Corporation
Philadelphia, PA 10102
L. S. DeAtley
Thompson-Hayward Chemical Company
Kansas City, KS 66110
Bob DeCicco
Marketing Services
Thompson-Hayward Chemical Company
Kansas City, Kansas 66110
O. DeGarmo
Monsanto Company
St. Louis, MO 63166
Dr. C. L. Dunn
Hercules Incorporated
Synthetics Department
Wilmington, Del. 19899
J.'Paul Ekberg
Intermediates Division
Tenneco Chemicals, Inc.
Piscataway, New Jersey 08854
John F. Ferguson
CIBA-Geigy Corporation
Agricultural Division
Greensboro, North Carolina 27409
Dr. S. N. Fertig
Agricultural Chemicals Division
Amchem Products, Inc.
Ambler, PA 19002
Dr. Robert L. Gates
FMC Corporation
Niagara Chemical Division
Middleport, N. Y. 14105
N. L. Gianakos
Marketing Services, Agricultural Division
Shell Chemical Company
San Ramon, CA 94583
M. M. Gladstone
Witco Chemical Corporation
Organics Division
Chicago, 111. 60611
B. A. Hallam
Semet-Solvay Division
Allied Chemical Corporation
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
Dr. Dale A. Harris
Rohm & Haas Company
Chemicals Division
Philadelphia, PA 19105
Martin C. Heisele
Diamond Shamrock Chemical Company
Houston, Texas 77015
Dr. G. D. Hill
Biochemicals Department
E. I. duPont deNemours & Company
Wilmington, Del. 19898
Kenneth L. Hill
Agricultural Division
American Cyanamid Company
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Jon W. Hooks
Eli Lilly and Company
Greenfield Laboratories
Greenfield, Indiana 46140
John A. Hughes
CIBA-Geigy Corporation
Agricultural Division
Greensboro, North Carolina 27409
399
-------
Appendix
Concluded
Jules J. J.ioqcr
Rohm fc lln.is Company
Philadelphia, PA 19105
Wayne Kincannon
Agricultural Division
Diamond Shamrock Chemical Company
Cleveland, Ohjo 44114
Dr. G. C. Klinqman
Greenfield Laboratories
Eli Lilly & Company
Greenfield, Indiana 46140
Dr. Charles Krister
E. I. duPont dcNemours & Company
Biochemicals Department
Wilmington, Del. 19898
John F. McCarthy
Agricultural Chemical Division
FMC Corporation
Middlcport, New York 14105
George D. Meyding
Pesticide Registrations
Stauffer Chemical Company
Richmond, CA 94804
Dr. II. II. Mooreficld
Agricultural Products and Services
Union Carbide Corporation
Salinas, CA 93901
Roy W. Olson
The Ansul Company
Harinette, Wisconsin 54143
Dr. J. N. Ospenson
Research & Development
Chevron Chemical Company
Richmond, CA 94804
Dr. C. O. Persing
Stauffer Chemical Company
Mountain View, CA 94040
Dr. Percy B. -Polen
Velsicol Chemical Corporation
Chicago, 111. 60611
Frank Porter
Agricultural Chemicals Division
Stauffer Chemical Company
Wcstport, Conn. 00880
C. II. Russell
Agricultural Division
Monsanto Commercial Products Company
St. Louis, MO C3166
!•'.. II. Sohwarzc
Witco Chemical Cor|*>ration
Pioneer Division
Perth Amboy, New Jersey 08862
Arthur W. Sheldon
M & T Chemicals Inc.
Rahway, New Jersey 07065
H. L. Straube
Agricultural Chemical Division
Stauffer Chemical Company
Westport, Conn. 06880
Dr. G. L. Sutherland
Agricultural Division
American Cyanamid Company
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Dr. Ely M. Swisher
Rohm & Haas Company
Chemicals Division
Philadelphia, PA 19105
H. J. Thome
Agrichemicals
E. I. duPont deNemours & Company
Wilmington, Dela. 19898
B. G. Tibbetts
Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Company
Monsanto
St. Louis, Missouri 63166
David A. Webb
Organic Materials Division
Koppers Company, Inc.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
John R. Weinert
Products & Industrial Chemicals
USS Chemicals
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
R. E. Werley, Jr.
The Ansul Company
Marinette, Wise. 54143
Dr. R. D. Wessel
Research & Development
Chevron Chemical Company
Richmond, CA 94804
Dr. Dale E. Wolf
E. I. duPont deNemours & Company
Biochemicals Department
Wilmington, Del. 19898
E. N. Woodbury
Pesticide Control Services
Hercules Incorporated
Wilmington, Delaware 19899
Thomas C. Zinninger
Velsicol Chemical Corporation
Chicago, 111. 60611
400
-------
R V R CONSULTANTS
P. O BOX 953 SHAWNEE MISSION. KANSAS 88201
TELEPHONE 913/722-5795
ROSMARIE VON RliMKER. SC. D.
June 1973
This letter addressed personally to an executive
in each of the 26 chemical companies that are basic
producers of one or more of the study products.
Under contract #EQC-311 from the Council on Environmental Quality,
Washington, D. C., we are currently conducting a study on the
properties and use patterns of some 25 pesticides in the United
States. This work is carried out jointly by the Midwest Research
Institute (MRI) of Kansas City, Missouri and RvR Consultants.
Your company's product(s) identified below are among our study
products. Thus, we are seeking your assistance in furnishing us
the information set forth in the attached form. We wish to present
the required data on each product as completely and accurately as
possible and would therefore appreciate your cooperation in answer-
ing each question on the form. One copy is intended for your files,
one is to be returned to us.
Please send us, along with the completed form, two copies each of
your technical bulletin on the product, and two copies each of
sample labels for the most important formulations in which the
product is sold.
We are working on this contract on a rather tight schedule and
would therefore much appreciate it if we would hear from you at
your earliest convenience. Please write or call if there are any
questions.
Many thanks in advance for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
RvR CONSULTANTS
Dr. Rosmarie von Rflmker
RvR:fh
cc: Dr. J. C. Davies III, CEQ
Washington, D. C. (Project Officer)
Dr. E. W. Lawless, MRI
Kansas City, Mo. 401
-------
RvR #29/Pesticide Summary
Contract IEQC-311
List of Study Products.
NOte: Pesticides for which we are seeking information from
your company are marked. One or more of these products may
have been included in the AID Pesticide Manual for which you
furnished us information last year. Insofar as that informa-
tion is still current, it need not be duplicated. For these
products, please complete only pages 6 and 7 of the form, plus
all other items on which you may have more recent data.
Herbicides! Insecticides;
atrazine chlordane
MSMA aldrin
trifluralin toxaphene
alachlor carbaryl
bromacil carbofuran
diuron parathion
2,4-D methyl parathion
chlorates malathion
disulfoton
diazinon
Fungicides; Fumigants:
pentachlorophenol p-dichlorobenzene
creosote methyl bromide
captan
maneb
organotin pesticides
Two sets of forms are attached for each product marked.
Please complete one and return it to us, the second one
is for your use.
402
-------
RvR #29/Pesticide Summary - Draft
Page II
Product Identity
Common name(s):
Tradename(s):
Chemical name:
(ACS-accepted terminology)
Structural formula:
Molecular weight:
Physical and Chemical Properties of Active Ingredient
Physical state:
Specific gravity:
Solubility in -
-water at 20 C:
at 30°C:
-organic solvents:
(State in general terms for common organic solvents. Give specific
solubility in at least two organic solvents.)
-lipids, fats:
Melting point:
Boiling point:
Vapor pressure:
(Give vapor pressure at two different temperatures if available.)
Flammability:
Stability:
Analytical Methods:
1st preference: Approved AOAC method (give reference).
If not available, list other standard method(s) by literature
or other reference(s).
403
-------
RvR #29/Pesticide Summary - Draft
Page #2
Hazards to Humans
Toxic action:
(Describe briefly if known.)
Acute toxicity to laboratory animals-
- oral:
- dermal:
- inhalation:
(State LD-50 &C-50 for inhalation toxicity} to rats and/or
other laboratory animals.)
Irritating to-
- eyes:
- nose & throat:
- skin:
(Answer "yes" or "no", assuming operator exposure under high
temperature, high humidity conditions. Indicate whether or
not sensitization may occur.)
Other hazards:
(Specify, or answer "none".)
Specific antidote(s):
(Specify, or answer "none".)
Chronic toxicity:
(Describe briefly. Give highest no-effect level(s) observed in
2-year tests, specify animal species.)
Cumulative toxic effects:
Allowable daily intake (FAO/WHO):
Residue tolerance(s):
(Give range of established U.S. tolerances and indicate tolerances
applicable to the most important commodities.)
404
-------
'VvR #29/Pesticide Summary - Draft
Circle toxicity category applicable to the active ingredient.
MAMMALIAN TOXICITY AND PRECAUTION CATEGORIES
o
-------
RvR #29/Pesticide Summary - Draft
Page #4
Hazards to the Environment
Toxicity to -
- fishes:
- lower aquatic
organisms:
- birds:
- wild mammals:
- soil organisms:
(Refer to attached definition of "Wildlife toxicity categories"
and enter appropriate statement /highly, moderately, slightly
toxic, or relatively non-toxic/ for each group of organisms.
Attach summary of supporting data if available. If toxicity
to these organisms not known, so state.)
Build-up in food chains (Answer "yes", "no" or "not known" ):
Likelihood of movement away from treated areas by -
- volatilization:
- leaching:
- surface runoff-
—in water:
—on solids:
- wind erosion:
(Describe likelihood based on physical and chemical properties
of product or on results of field tests, if available.)
Degradation in the environment
Chemical route:
Major degradation product(s) and their toxicity relative
to the parent cpd.:
(Describe briefly if known. If not known, so state.)
Degradable by -
—biological organisms:
—non-biological factors:
—sunlight: •
(Answer "yes", "no", or "not known".)
Overall rate of degradation:
Persistence in soil:
Carry-over to next season:
Precautions: State precautions necessary to prevent harm to the
environment, including non-target organisms.
406
-------
RvR #29/Pesticide Summary - Draft
Page #5
WILDLIFE TOXICITY CATEGORIES
"Highly toxic" means that severe losses may occur if
the pesticide is used in or over a habitat containing
the animals or organisms specified. "Use" of the
pesticide in this context means use at recommended
dosage levels including such overuse as may be ex-
pected in normal operations from overlapping swaths,
inadvertant double treatment and/or miscalibration.
^Moderately toxic" means that moderate losses of the
animals or organisms may occur under the operating
conditions outlined in the preceding paragraph.
"Slightly toxic" means that slight losses or injury
to non-target animals or organisms may occur.
"Relatively non-toxic" means that no losses or injury
to non-target species are likely to occur, allowing
for a considerable margin of overuse, misapplication
and/or miscalibration.
407
-------
RvR #29/Pesticide Summary - Draft
Page #6
Use Profile (U.S. uses only)
Target crops (List most important crops or other targets on which
the product is used, in decreasing order of approximate quantity
of product used for each purpose):
Target pests (List the pests /insects, mites, weeds, diseases, etc./
against which the product is used most often, in decreasing order
of frequency of use):
Application rates (Give rate/s/ of application, in terms of active
ingredient per acre, generally used on the above crops and pests.
If product is used broadcast and banded, give rates for each type
of treatment and indicate percentage of total acreage treated
with the product receiving broadcast and band treatments,
respectively):
408
-------
RvR 129/Pesticide Summary - Draft
Page #7
Time and frequency of application (Indicate how many times per
season the product is generally used on the same acreage or
other target area, and at what time/s/ of the year):
Type of application (Indicate, in decreasing order of importance,
the rormulation/s/ and type of equipment most often employed
in the use of the product):
Areas of use; Considering all major uses of the product, estimate
approximate percentage of the total domestic consumption used
in each of the following regions in 1972:
Northeast: %
Southeast: %
North central: %
South central: %
Northwest: %
Southwest: %
Total U.S. 100%
Note: If your company is not the only supplier of this product
to the U.S. market, please answer this question in terms
of the total U.S. consumption, regardless of the source
of supply. Include agricultural as well as all other uses
in your estimate.
409
-------
APPENDIX F
COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE ON SURVEYS OF PESTICIDE USE
BY STATE AND MUNICIPAL AGENCIES
410
-------
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City. Missouri 64110
Telephone (816) 561-0202
July 13, 1973
Dear Sir:
Midwest Research Institute is conducting a study for the President's Council
on Environmental Quality. Fart of our task is to determine the kinds and
amounts of pesticides purchased by state governments. Our interest includes
all types of pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides,
etc) purchased by such departments as Fish and Game, Forestry, Public Health,
Highways, Parks, Public Works, Agriculture, and others that you may have in
your state. Note that we are not asking for data on pesticides used by the
general public or by federal agencies in your state.
If your department can provide this information, we would appreciate receiving
it. A form and an example is provided for your convenience in reporting your
state's pesticide usage.
If your department cannot supply this information, could you please do one of
the following:
1. Forward copies of this letter to those departments which are
major purchasers of pesticides and ask them to supply us with this information;
or
2. Provide us with names and addresses of those departments which
are major purchasers so that we may contact them directly.
It is important that reasonable estimates of the total amounts of "active
ingredient" are obtained for each pesticide used by our state governments.
Your cooperation will be of value to the Council on Environmental Quality
and will be greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Alfred F. Meiners
Principal Chemist
AFM/dw
411
-------
Return to:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Attn: Dr. Alfred F. Meiners
STATE
PESTICIDE USEJOATA FOR STATE GOVERNMENTS
DATA FOR YEAR (If other than 1972)
Department
Health
Parks
£
NJ
Buildings and
grounds main-
tenance
Rodent control
Purpose of
Pesticide Use
Mosquito control
Weed control
Roaches , s ilver f ish
etc.
Rats
Pesticide
Used
Abate
2,4-D,
butyl ester
Chlordane
c
«
Warfarin
Calculation of Amount AI Used-'
As Purchased^/
% AI or
Lb/Gal
4 Ib/gal
B.C.
. 1
*\&V
W
^
0.05%
bait
Lb or Gal .
Used
15 gal.
r^ri^
oQ'
* \J
t»
1,000 Ib
As Applied^/
7, AI or
Lb/Gal
Lb or
Gal. Used
2% spray) 100 gal.
Acres
Treated
50 acres
Lb A I /Acre
1 Ib/acre
(as 2,4-D
acid)
Estimated
Total AI
Used, Lb
(or gal.)
60 Ib
50 Ib
(2 gal.)
0.5 Ib
a/ AI = Active Ingredient; use whichever calculation method is most convenient.
b/ Technical product, concentrate or formulation.
-------
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Telephone (816) 561-0202
October 5, 1973
Dear Sir:
Midwest Research Institute is conducting a study for the President's Council
on Environmental Quality. Fart of our task is to determine the kinds and
amounts of pesticides used by municipal governments. Our interest includes
pesticides used by such departments as Parks and Recreation (herbicides,
fungicides, insecticides, etc.), Rodent Control (rodenticides), Public Health
(insecticides, etc.), and others that you may have in your city.
If your department can provide this information, we would appreciate receiving
it. A form and an example is provided for your convenience in reporting your
city's pesticide usage.
If your department cannot supply this information, could you please do one of
the following:
1. Forward copies of this letter to those departments which are
major purchasers of pesticides and ask them to supply us with this information;
or
2. Provide us with names and addresses of those departments which
are major purchasers so that we may contact them directly.
It is important that reasonable estimates of the total amounts of "active
ingredient" are obtained for each pesticide used in our cities. Your cooper-
ation will be of value to the Council on Environmental Quality and will be
greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Alfred F. Meiners
Principal Chemist
AFM:mmd
413
-------
MAILING LIST
PESTICIDE USAGE BY STATE AGENCIES
Howard L. White, Jr.
Purchasing Agent
Division of Purchasing and Stores
Department of Finance
Montgomery, Alabama 36100
R. R. Leach
Director
Purchasing Division
Department of Finance
Phoenix, Arizona 85000
John E. Hale
Director
Purchasing Division
Department of Administration
Little Rock, Arkansas 72200
John S. Babich
Purchasing Manager
Office of Procurement
Department of General Services
Sacramento, California 95800
Louis S. Middlemist
Director
Division of Purchasing
Department of Administration
Denver, Colorado 80200
William H. Finnegan, Director
Purchasing Division
Department of Finance and Contracts
Middletown, Connecticut 0645-7 •
Jack D. White, Director
Division of Purchasing
Department of Administrative Services
Delaware City, Delaware 19706
John J. Hittinger, Director
Division of Purchasing
Department of General Services
Tallahassee, Florida 32300
Hoyte E. Robinson, Supervisor
Purchasing Department
Atlanta, Georgia 30300
Ted Cramer, Purchasing Agent
Off4-" Of Purchasing Agent
Boise, Idaho 83700
Thomas B. Blanco, Purchasing Agent
Procurement Division
Department of General Services
Springfield, Illinois 62700
E. Frank Burris, Director
Supply Division
Department of Administration
Indianapolis, Indiana 46200
Duane W. Carlson, Purchasing Agent
Department of Social Services
Des Moines, Iowa 50300
Henry H. Knouft, Director
Purchasing Division
Department of Administration
Topeka, Kansas 66600
N.B. McCubbin, Director of Purchasing
Department of Finance
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Sheffield C. Spring, Director of Purchasing
Purchasing and Property Contract Section
Division of Administration
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70800
414
-------
Linwood F. Ross, Purchasing Agent
Bureau of Purchasing
August, Maine 04330
Stanley J. Hanna, Acting Chief
Purchasing Bureau
Department of General Services
Pikesville, Maryland 21208
Alfred C. Holland, Purchasing Agent
Executive Office for Administration
and Finance
Boston, Massachusetts 02100
Frank J. Pennoni, Chief
Purchasing Division
Department of Administration
Lansing, Michigan 55100
Alan 0. Vessey, Director
Division of Procurement
Department of Administration
St. Paul, Minnesota 55100
L. Donald Jordon, Supervisor
Purchasing Division
Commission on Budgeting and
Accounting
Jackson, Mississippi 39200
Robert L. Norris, Purchasing Agent
Office of Purchasing Agent
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Harold F. Weggenman, Director
Purchasing Division
Department of Administration
Helena, Montana 59601
Willard J. Wells, Purchasing Agent
Department of Administrative Services
Lincoln, Nebraska 68500
Avis M. Hicks, Purchasing
Administrator
Division of Purchasing
Carson City, Nevada 89701
Richard N. Peale, Director
Division of Purchasing and Property
Department of the Treasury
Trenton, New Jersey 08600
C. R. Sebastian, Purchasing Agent
Office of Purchasing Agent
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
George E. Brewer, Director
Standards and Purchasing Group
•Office of General Services
Albany, New York 12200
R. D. McMillan, Jr., Purchasing Office
Division of Purchasing and Contract
Department of Administration
Raleigh, North Carolina 26600
Ralph Dewing, Director
Department of Accounts and Purchasing
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
Robert W. Stuart, Chief
Division of Purchasing
Department of Finance
Columbus, Ohio 43200
Ira M. Baker, Director
Central Purchasing Division
Board of Public Affairs
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73100
Ramon A. Damerell, Administrator
Procurement Division
Department of General Services
Salem, Oregon 97300
Frank C. Hilton, Secretary
Department of Property and Supplies
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17100
Leslie D. Lemieux, Purchasing Agent
Division of Purchasing
Department of Administration
Providence, Rhode Island 02900
415
-------
James H. Barnes, Assistant Purchasing John E. Short, Director
Officer Bureau of Purchasing and Services
Division of General Services Department of Administration
Columbia, South Carolina 29200 Madison, Wisconsin 53700
Ambrose M. Schultz, Director Elias S. Galeotos, Purchasing Agent
Division of Purchasing and Printing Board of State Supplies
Department of Administration Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
Howard N. Kesley, Commissioner of
Purchasing
Department of Standards and Purchasing
Nashville, Tennessee 37200
C. M. Walton, Chief
Purchasing Division
Board of Contracts
Austin, Texas 78700
J. Douglas Christiansen,
Purchasing Agent
Department of Finance
Salt Lake City, Utah 84100
Richard C. Raymond, Director
Purchasing Division
Department of Administration
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
B.P. Alsop, Jr., Director
Department of Purchasing and Supply
Richmond, Virginia 23200
Gerald G. Geer, Accounting Supervisor
Division of Purchasing
Department of General Administration
Olympia, Washington 98500
Benjamin E. Rubrecht, Director
Division of Purchasing
Department of Finance and
Administration
Charleston, West Virginia 25300
416
-------
CONTACTED REFERRALS FROM STATE PURCHASING OFFICE
Department of Food and Agriculture
State of California
Agriculture Chemicals and Feeds
1200 N. Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Robert W. Roe, Purchasing Agent
Department of Highways & Transportation
Highway Administration Building
Dover, Delaware 19901
Department of Environmental Control
Tutwell Building
Dover, Delaware 19901
Department of Agriculture
Dover, Delaware 19901
Office of State Custodian
(AC 302 678-4611)
State House
Dover, Delaware 19901
Bureau of Material Management
Department of General Services
District of Columbia Government
613 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202-629-3001)
Department of Transportation
2300 South 31st Street
Springfield, Illinois
Department of Conservation
602 State Office Building
Springfield, Illinois
Department of Agriculture
Ellington Agriculture Center
Nashville, Tennessee
Department of Mental Health
300 Cordell Hull Building
Nashville. Tennessee 37219
417
Department of Conservation
2611 West End Avenue
Nashville, Tennessee
Department of Corrections
1007 Andrew Jackson State Office
Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
Department of Education
100-B Cordell Hull Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
Game and Fish Commission
Game and Fish Building
Ellington Agriculture Center
Nashville, Tennessee
Department of Transportation
817 Highway Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
Military Department
National Guard Armory
Sidco Drive
Nashville, Tennessee
Mr. R. E. Flaherty, Director
Equipment & Procurement
Texas Highway Department
Texas Highway Building
Austin, Texas 78701
Mr. Clayton Garrison, Executive
Director
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
100 John H. Reagan Building
Austin, Texas 78701
Mrs. Evelyn Ricks, Purchaser
Texas Department of Corrections
Box 99
Huntsville, Texas 77340
-------
MAILING LIST - SURVEY OF PESTICIDE USAGE BY MUNICIPALITIES
Purchasing Agent
City Hall
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
Purchasing Agent
Purchasing Department
City Hall
68 Mitchell S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Purchasing Department
124 West 8th
Austin, Texas 78701
Purchasing Department
City Hall
100 North Holliday
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Purchasing Agent
City Hall
Bismarck, North Dakota 53501
Finance Commission
3 Center Plaza
Faneuil Hall Market
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Director of Purchasing
City Hall
Buffalo, New York 14202
Purchasing Agent
1255 North Beech
Casper, Wyoming 82601
Purchasing Agent
121 North LaSalle
City Hall
Chicago, Illinois 62521
Centralized Accounting
City and County Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001
City Hall
8th and Plum
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Finance Department
General Offices
City Hall
601 Lakeside, N.E.
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Administrative Departments
City Hall
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Purchase Board
90 West Broad
Columbus, Ohio 4315
Purchasing Agent
City Hall
Main and Harwood
Dallas, Texas 75202
Puschasing Agent
City
226 West 4th Street
Davenport, Iowa
Purchasing Division
Finance Department
East 1st and Locust
Des Moines, Iowa 50601
Department of Purchases and Supplies
2 Woodward
Detroit, Michigan 48226
418
-------
Treasury Division
City and County Building
Denver, Colorado 30202
Purchasing Agent
5th Avenue and 1st
City Hall
Duluth, Minnesota
Purchasing Divison
City Hall
1000 Throckmorton
Ft. Worth, Texas
Purchasing Agent
City Hall
Helena, Montana 59602
City Hall
900 Brazos
Houston, Texas 77002
Weed Control
Health Department
Houston, Texas 77002
Purchasing Central
City- County Building
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Comptroller's Office
City Hall
Louisville, Kentucky
Central Supply Stores
935 Logan
Louisville, Kentucky
Hall
555 South 10th
Lincoln, Nebraska
Purchasing Agent
321 East 2nd
Los Angeles, California 90012
Purchasing Agent
125 North Main Street
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
Purchasing Division
Finance Department
Dinner Key
City Hall
Miami, Florida 33133
Purchasing Department
City
200 East Wells
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Purchasing Department
City Hall
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Purchasing
111 South Royal
Mobile, Alabama 36602
Bureau of Purchasing
Finance Department
City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana 70012
Department of Purchasing
Municipal Services Administration
Municipal Building
New York, New York 10007
Purchasing Department
Finance
200 North Walker
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102
Finance Department
City Hall
108 South 18th
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
Service Center
Supplies Department
City-County Building
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
419
-------
City Treasurer
Supplies Department
City-County Building
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
Finance Department
Municipal Services Building
Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19107
Purchasing Division
Municipal Building
251 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizon 85003
Purchases andStationary
Bureau of Stores
1220 S.W. 5th
Portland, Oregon 97204
Purchasing Department
City Hall
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Supply Commissioner
City Hall
12th and Market
St. Louis, Missouri 63103
Purchasing Department
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
City Hall
Military Plaza
San Antonio, Texas
Purchasing Department
Administrative Offices and Buyers
City Administration Building
San Diego, California
Purchasing Department
City Civic Center
San Francisco, California 94102
Purchasing Division
Purchasing Agent
Seattle Municipal Building
600 4th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
City Hall
405 6th Street
Sioux City, Iowa 83626
Purchasing Department
200 Civic Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Procurement Office
499 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
420
-------
REFERENCES
1. Lawless, E. W., T. L. Ferguson, and R. von Rumker, "Pollution Potential
in Pesticide Manufacturing," Final Report by Midwest Research Institute
on Contract No. 68-01-0142 for the Environmental Protection Agency,
June 1972. (NTIS Nos. PB-213,782/3.)
2. von Ru'mker, R., R. M. Matter, D. P. Clement, and F. K. Erickson, "The Use
of Pesticides in Suburban Homes and Gardens and Their Impact on the
Aquatic Environment," Final Report by Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson, and
Associates, Inc., on Contract No. 68-01-0119 for the Environmental
Protection Agency, May 1972.
3. Hylton, A. R., and G. R. Savage, "The Use and Effects of Pesticides for
Rangeland Sagebrush Control," Final Report by Midwest Research Institute
on Contract No. 68-01-0128 for the Environmental Protection Agency,
May 1972. (Available from U.S. Government Printing Office.)
4. Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson and Associates, Inc., "Development of a Case
Study of the Total Effect of Pesticides in the Environment, Nonirrigated
Croplands of the Midwest," Contract No. 68-01-0117 for the Environmental
Protection Agency, June 1972.
5. Li, Ming-yu, and R. A. Fleck, "The Effects of Agricultural Pesticides in
the Aquatic Environment Irrigated Croplands, San Joaquin Valley," Final
Report by the Food Protection and Toxicology Center, University of Cali-
fornia at Davis on Contract No. 68-01-0134 for the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, June 1972. (Available from U.S. Government Printing Office.)
6. Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc., "The Movement and Impact of Pesti-
cides Used in Forest Management on the Aquatic Environment and Ecosystem,"
Contract No. 68-01-0125 for the Environmental Protection Agency, June
1972.
7. Baker, R. A., "Pesticide Usage and Its Impact on the Aquatic Environment
in the Southeast," Final Report by Teledyne Brown Engineering on Contract
No. 68-01-0118 for the Environmental Protection Agency, September 1972.
8. Arthur D. Little, Inc., "The Movement and Impact of Pesticides Used for
Vector Control on the Aquatic Environment in the Northeastern United
States," Contract No. 68-01-0129 for the Environmental Protection Agency,
July 1972. (Available from U.S. Government Printing Office.)
421
-------
9. Smithsonian Science Information Exchange, Inc., "A Catalog of Research in
Aquatic Pest Control and Pesticide Residues in Aquatic Environments,"
Contract No. 68-01-0349 for the Environmental Protection Agency, May
1972. (Available from U.S. Government Printing Office.)
10. Reese, C. D., I. W. Dodson, V. Ulrich, D. L. Becker, and C. J. Kempter,
"Pesticides in the Aquatic Environment," Environmental Protection Agency,
April 1972.
11. Strickland, J., and T. Blue, "Environmental Indicators for Pesticides,"
Final Report by Stanford Research Institute for the Council on Environ-
mental Quality, April 1972. (NTIS No. PB-210,066.)
12. Environmental Quality - The Third Annual Report of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., pp.
16-20, August 1972.
13. Blodgett, J. E., and C. A. Musgrove, "Pesticide Use: Trends and Problems,"
Congressional Reference Service, Library of Congress, prepared for the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Environment, and Consumer Protection,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 93rd Congress
(First Session), 64 pages (1973).
14. U.S. Tariff Commission, U.S. Production and Sales of Pesticides and
Related Products, 1972. U.S. Production and Sales of Pesticides and
Related Products. 1971, Washington, D.C. (1973).
15. U.S. Department of Agriculture, The Pesticide Review. 1972, Agri-
cultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Washington, B.C.,
for 1962 to 1971 (1973).
16. U.S. Department of Agriculture, The Pesticide Review, Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., for 1966 to
1971.
17. U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Quantities of Pesticides Used by Farmers
in 1966," Agricultural Economic Report No. 179, Washington, D.C. (1970).
18. U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Quantities of Pesticides Used by Farmers
in 1971," Economic Research Service, Washington, B.C., in press (1974).
19. U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Patterns of Pesticide Use and Reduction
in Use as Related to Social and Economic Factors," Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Pesticide Studies Series No. 10, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. (1972).
20. U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Extent and Cost of Weed Control with
Herbicides and an Evaluation of Important Weeds, 1968," Economic Research
Service, Extension Service, and Agricultural Research Service (ARS-H-1)
(1972).
-------
21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1972).
22. Farm Chemicals Magazine, January 1970, January 1971, January 1972.
23. Neumeyer, J., D. Gibbons, and H. Trask, "Pesticides, Parts I and II,"
Chemical Week, pp. 37-68, 12 April 1969, and pp. 37-68, 26 April 1969.
24. Johnson, 0., "Pesticides 1972, Parts I and II," Chemical Week, pp. 33-66,
21 June 1972, and pp. 17-46, 26 July 1972.
25. Farm Chemicals Handbook, Meister Publishing Company, Willoughby, Ohio.
26. Agri-Fieldman, Meister Publishing Company, Willoughby, Ohio.
27. Agrichemical Age, San Francisco, California.
28. Chemical and Engineering News, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
29. Pesticide Chemical News, Washington, D.C.
30. Wallaces Farmer, Research Department, Iowa Agricultural Chemical and
Fertilizer Survey Report, Des Moines, Iowa (1972).
31. Prairie Farmer, Research Department, Illinois and Indiana Agricultural
Chemical and Fertilizer Survey Report, Chicago, Illinois (1972).
32. Wisconsin Agriculturist, Research Department, Agricultural Chemical and
Fertilizer Survey Report, Madison, Wisconsin (1972).
33. Delvo, H. W., "Herbicide Use on Corn and Soybeans in the North Central
Region, 1972," North Central Weed Control Conference Proceedings, pp.
17-19 (1973).
34. Mitich, L. W., "Summary of the 1972 Chemical Weed Control Survey," Depart-
ment of Agronomy, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota,
unpublished report (1973).
35. Petty, H. B., "Soil-Insecticide Use in Illinois Corn Fields, 1966-1972:
A Comparative Summary of Survey Methods Used." 26th Illinois Custom
Spray Operators Training School, Cooperative Extension Service, Univer-
sity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Agriculture, in coopera-
tion with the Illinois Natural History Survey, Summary of Presentations,
pp. 24-32 (1974).
36. Lewis, W. M., and A. D. Worsham, "Data on Use of Herbicides in North
Carolina," personal communication (1973).
423
-------
37. Gill, T. G., and R. B. Phelps, "Wood Preservation Statistics, 1972,"
American Wood Preservers' Association (1973).
38. Survey of NPCA Insect Control Committees, "Relative Importance of Insecti-
cides Used Indoors," supplied by Dr. C. D. Mampe, Director of Technical
Services, National Pest Control Association, Washingcon, D.C.
39. Mampe, C. D., "Rodenticide Use by Pest Control Operators," presented at
the Symposium on Rodenticides (1970).
40. Activities of the Division of Entomology, Kansas State Board of Agriculture,
Topeka, Kansas, Annual Report (1972).
41. State Forestry Statistics, 1964, "Forests and Forestry in the American
States," National Association of Sta'te Foresters (1968).
42. Information supplied by W. H. Wymer, Executive Secretary, Federal Working
Group on Pest Management, Room E501, East Tower, 401 M Street, S.W. ,
Washington, D.C. 20460 (1972).
43. Mrak, E. M., "Report of the Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and
Their Relationship to Environmental Health," U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1969.
44. White-Stevens, R., editor, Pesticides in the Environment, Vols. I and
II, Marcel Dekker, New York (1971).
45. von Riimker, R., and F. Horay, "Pesticide Manual. I. Safe Handling and
Use of Pesticides. II. Basic Information on 35 Pesticide Chemicals.
III. Specifications," prepared for the Agency for International Develop-
ment, under Subcontract No. HG 665290 with the Regents of the University
of California (1972).
46. Pimentel, D., "Ecological Effects of Pesticides on Nontarget Species,"
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1971).
47. Lichtenstein, E. P., "Fate and Movement of Insecticides in and From Soils,"
in: Pesticides in the Soil: Ecology, Degradation and Movement, Inter-
national Symposium, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
pp. 101-106 (1970).
48. Wiersma, G. B., H. Tai, and P. F. Sand, "Pesticide Residue Levels in Soil,
FY 1969 - National Soils Monitoring Program," Pest. Monit. J., 6(3):194-
228 (1972). ~~
424
-------
49. Faust, S. D., chairman, "Fate of Organic Pesticides in the Aquatic Environ-
ment," Advances in Chemistry Series 111, American Chemical Society,
Washington, B.C. (1972).
50. Johnson, H. E., and R. C. Ball, "Organic Pesticide Pollution in an Aquatic
Environment," in: Fate of Organic Pesticides in the Aquatic Environment,
Advances in Chemistry Series 111, American Chemical Society, Washington,
B.C., pp. 1-10 (1972).
•51. Adair, H. M., F. A. Harris, M. V. Kennedy, M. L. Laster, and E. D. Threadgill,
"Drift of Methyl Parathion Aerially Applied Low Volume and Ultra Low
Volume," J. Econ. Entomol., 64(3):718-721 (1971).
52. Akesson, N. B., and W. E. Yates, "Problems Relating to Application of
Agricultural Chemicals and Resulting Drift Residues," Annual Review of
Entomology, 9:285-318 (1964).
53. Brazzel, J. R., W. W. Watson, J. S. Hursh, and M. H. Adair, "The Relative
Efficiency of Aerial Application of Ultra-Low-Volume and Emulsifiable
Concentrate Formulations of Insecticides," J. Econ. Entomol., 61(2):
408-413 (1968). ~~
54. Caro, J. H., H. P. Freeman, D. E. Glotfelty, B. J. Turner, and W. M.
Edwards, "Dissipation of Soil-Incorporated Carbofuran in the Field,"
J. Agr. Food Chem., 21(6):1010-1015 (1973).
55. Ritter, W. F., H. P. Johnson, W. G. Lovely, and M. Molnau, "Atrazine,
Propachlor, and Diazinon Residues on Small Agricultural Watersheds,
Runoff Losses, Persistence, and Movement," Environ. Sci. Technol., 8(1):
38-42 (1974). ~
56- White, A. W., A. B. Barnett, B. G. Wright, and J. H. Holladay, "Atrazine
Losses from Fallow Land Caused by Runoff and Erosion," Environ. Sci.
Technol.. 1:740-744 (1967).
57. Shaw, W. C., and L. L. Jansen, "Chemical Weed Control Strategies for the
Future," in: Pest Control Strategies for the Future, National Academy
of Sciences, Washington, D.C., pp. 197-215 (1972).
58. Cate, J. R., Jr., D. G. Bottrell, and G. L. Teetes, "Management of the
Greenbug on Grain Sorghum. I. Testing Foliar Treatments of Insecti-
cides Against Greenbugs and Corn Leaf Aphids," J. Econ. Entomol., 66
(4):945-951 (1973). ~~
59. Horsfall, J. G., chairman, Genetic Vulnerability of Major Crops, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. (1972).
425
-------
60. DeBach, P., "The Use of Imported Natural Enemies in Insect Pest Manage-
ment Ecology," Proc. Tall Timbers Conference, 3:211-233 (1972).
61. Doutt, R. L., "Biological Control: Parasites and Predators," in: Pest
Control Strategies for the Future, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C., pp. 288-297 (1972).
62. Geier, P. W., "Management of Insect Pests," Annual Review of Entomology,
,11:471-490 (1966).
63. Geier, P. W., "Temporary Suppression, Population Management or Eradication:
How and When to Choose," Proc. Conference on Concepts of Pest Management,
North Carolina State University, pp. 170-190 (1970).
64. Sailer, R. I., "Concepts, Principles and Potentials of Biological Control -
Parasites and Predators," Proc. North Central Branch, Entomological
Society of America, 27; 35-39 (1972).
65. Varley, G. C., "The Need for Life Tables for Parasites and Predators,"
Proc. Conference on Concepts of Pest Management, North Carolina State
University, pp. 59-70 (1970).
66. Varley, G. C., and G. R. Gradwell, "Recent Advances in Insect Population
Dynamics," Annual Review of Entomology, JL5_: 1-24 (1970).
67. Bowers, W. S., "Juvenile Hormones," in: Naturally Occurring Insecticides,
M. Dekker, Inc., New York, New York (1971).
68. Menn, J. J. , and M. Beroza, "Insect Juvenile Hormones - Chemistry and
Action," Academic Press, New York and London (1972).
69. Robbins, W. E., "Hormonal Chemicals for Invertebrate Pest Control," in:
Pest Control Strategies for the Future, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, B.C., pp. 172-196 (1972).
70. Shorey, H. H., "Behavioral Responses to Insect Pheromones," Annual Review
of Entomology, _1£:349-380 (1973).
71. Beroza, M., "Attractants and Repellents for Insect Control," in: Pest
Control Strategies for the Future, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, B.C., pp. 226-256 (1972).
72. van Emden, H. F., and G. F. Williams, "Insect Stability and Diversity in
Agro-Ecosystems," Annual Review of Entomology, _19j455-475 (1974).
426
-------
73. Lichtenstein, E. P., T. T. Liang, and B. N. Anderegg, "Synergism of
Insecticides by Herbicides," Science, 181:847-849 (1973).
74. Frost, D. V., "Arsenicals in Biology - Retrospect and Prospect," Fed.
Proc., 26(1), January-February 1967.
75. Faith, W. L., D. B. Keyes, and R. L. Clark, Industrial Chemicals, Third
Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (1965).
76. Mineral Industry Surveys, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines,
November 1973.
77. American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, private communication (1974).
78. Wood Preservation Statistics, 1972, American Wood Preservers' Association
and Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Encyclopedia of
Science and Technology, Kirk-Othmer, Second Edition, Vol. 19, p. 668.
79. Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Kirk-Othmer, Second Edition,
Vol. 19, p. 668.
80. Chemical Marketing Reporter, 10 April 1972.
81. Doorley, T. L., K. P. Fagans, R. Levy, L. Ward, and R. Williams, "Economic
Analysis of Proposed Effluent Guidelines - Timber Processing Industry,"
EPA Report No. EPA-230/1-73-029, August 1973.
82. Hunt, G. M., and G. A. Garratt, Wood Preservation, Third Edition, McGraw-
Hill, Inc. (1967).
83. "Range-Finding Toxicity Tests on Creosote," report prepared by Industrial
Hygiene Foundation of America, Inc., for Kopper Company, Inc. (1965).
84. Patty, "Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology," Second Rev. Edition, Vol. 2,
pp. 1393-1395 (1963).
85. Sail, R. D., and M. J. Shear, "Studies in Carcinogenesis, XII Effects
of the Basic Fraction of Creosote Oil on the Production of Tumors in
Mice by Chemical Carcinogens," J. Natl. Cancer Inst., pp. 45-54 (1940).
86. Mackay, J. S., "A Proposed Standard under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act for 14 Carcinogens," Testimony by U.S. Steel Corporation
to Department of Labor, 14 September 1973.
87. Bramhall, G. B., and P. Cooper, Proceedings American Wood Preservers'
Association, ,68:194 (1972).
427
-------
88. Stasse, H., Proceedings American Wood Preservers' Association, j60_: 109
(1964).
89. Webb, D., "Creosote, An Environmental Hazard?" presented at the Sym-
posium on EPA-OSHA Impact on the Wood Preservation Industry, Syracuse,
New York, 14-15 November 1973.
90. U.S. Patents Nos. 2,131,259 (Dow, 1938) and 2,947,790 (Reichhold, 1960).
Also, Chemical Process Review, No. 5, Pesticide Production Processes
(1967).
91. Kirsch, E. J., "A Symposium on EPA-OSHA Impact on the Wood Preservation
Industry," Syracuse, New York, 14-15 November 1973.
92. Stark, A., J. Agr. Food Chem., JJ:871 (1969).
93. Rudling, L. , Water Res. , 4_:533 (1970).
94. Buhler, D. R., M. E. Rasmusson, and H. S. Nakaue, "Occurrence of Hexa-
chlorophene and Pentachlorophenol in Sewage and Water," Environ. Sci.
Technol., 1(10):929 (1973).
95. Johnson, R. L., P. J. Gehring, R. J. Kociba, and B. A. Schwetz, "Chlo-
rinated Dibenzodioxins and Pentachlorophenol," presented at the Con-
ference on Chlorinated Dibenzodioxins and Dibenzofurans, sponsored by
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 2 April 1973.
96. University of Arizona, Department of Entomology, Tucson, Arizona.
97. "Pesticide Use Report, 1972," California Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Chemcials and Feed, 1220 N Street, Sacramento, Cali-
fornia.
98. Florida Department of Agriculture, data for the period stated which have
been reported by Pesticide Registrants and compiled as of 26 February
1973.
99. Annual Report No. 6, p. 25, University of Hawaii, Community Studies on
Pesticides - Hawaii Project, Pacific Biomedical Research Center,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
100. Information supplied by W. W. Benson, Project Director, Idaho Community
Study on Pesticides, Department on Environmental and Community Services,
Statehouse, Boise, Idaho.
428
-------
101. "Illinois Pesticide Use by Illinois Farmers, 1972," Illinois Cooperative
Crop Reporting Service, Illinois Department of Agriculture, and U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Bulletin 73-3.
102. "Agricultural Pesticide Report - Five Lake States," Michigan Crop Reporting
Service, Lansing, Michigan,
103. Annual Report by College of Medicine, Institute of Agricultural Medicine,
Iowa Community Pesticides Study, University of Iowa, Oakdale, Iowa.
104. Disposal of Pesticides and Related Containers in Maryland, a Final Report
of the Disposal Task Force to the Pesticide Advisory Board.
105. Michigan Department of Agriculture, Plant Industry Division.
106. General Farm Use of Pesticides - Minnesota, 1972, Minnesota and U.S.
Departments of Agriculture, Crop and Livestock Reporting Service,
July 1973.
107. Young, D. F., leader, Extension Entomology, Cooperative Extension Service,
Mississippi State, Mississippi.
108. Quarterly Report No. 20, Department of Biochemistry, Mississippi State,
Mississippi, January-March 1973.
109. Cooperative Extension Service, Montana State University, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, and Montana Counties Cooperating, Montana State Univer-
sity, Bozeman, Montana.
110. Medical University of South Carolina, Community Pesticide Study (estimates
are as reported).
111. Texas Community Pesticides Study, 152 East Stenger, San Benito, Texas.
112. "The Utah Community Study on Pesticides," EPA Contract No. 68-02-0571,
Contractor: Utah State Department of Social Services, Utah State
Division of Health, 44 Medical Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah.
429
-------
SUBJECT INDEX
Pages
Acid Copper Chromate (CCA)
Alachlor:
Aldicarb:
Aldrin:
Alternatives to
Chemicals:
Aluminum Phosphide:
Atninotriazole:
Animate®:
Antimetabolites and Anti-
feeding Agents:
Atrazine:
38, 39, 351
Bacillus thuringiensis:
xiii, 3, 7, 25, 31, 62, 68, 76, 77, 79,
84, 85, 88, 110, 205-210, 216, 262,
350, 355, 356, 362, 368, 369, 370,
371, 374, 375, 378, 382, 386
68, 102, 349, 354, 359, 361, 367, 377,
381
xiii, 3, 7, 10, 25, 26, 31, 49, 50, 52,
63, 68, 76, 77, 78, 84, 85, 99, 106,
111, 126-132, 153, 196, 197, 198, 349,
355, 356, 359, 361, 365, 366, 369,
370, 371, 372, 373/374, 375, 381,
384, 386
113-121, 129-131, 137, 145, 153, 155,
162, 164, 169, 171, 177, 185, 192,
203, 208, 216, 222, 229, 235, 244,
254, 262, 267, 268 292, 294, 304,
315, 326, 330, 343
16, 45, 68, 352, 355, 361
37, 42, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 68, 87,
90, 360, 362, 385
37, 43, 44, 58, 68, 72, 87, 89, 90
119
xiii, 3, 7, 25, 26, 31, 37, 40, 42, 58,
61, 63, 68, 76, 77, 79, 81, 84, 85,
87, 88, 97, 211-217, 350, 355, 356,
360, 362, 368, 369, 370, 371, 375,
382, 385, 386
68, 115, 116, 359, 367
430
-------
SUBJECT INDEX (Continued)
BHC:
Bis(tributytin)oxide:
Bromacil:
Calcium Arsenate:
Captan:
Carbaryl:
Carbofuran:
CCA Salts:
Chlordane:
Chromated Copper Arsenate
(CCA):
Chromated Zinc Chloride:
Commercial Use:
Copper Sulfate:
Pages
57, 68, 72, 99, 349, 359, 361, 365
371, 372
31, 54, 55, 334, 338, 339, 343, 345-346
xiv, 3,7, 25, 31, 37, 40, 41, 42, 58,
63, 68, 76, 77, 79, 81, 84, 85, 87,
88, 218-224, 235, 350, 355, 356, 360,
362, 385
10, 16, 68, 361, 373, 385
xiv, 3, 7, 25, 62, 68, 76, 77, 80, 84,
85, 88, 110, 264-270, 351, 355, 356,
360, 363, 371
xiii, 3, 7, 25, 26, 31, 47, 50, 51, 52,
63, 68, 72, 76, 77, 78, 84, 85, 88,
133-140, 162, 177, 185, 349, 356,
359, 361, 370, 371, 374, 375, 377,
381, 383, 384, 386
xiii, 3, 7, 25, 31, 52, 62, 68, 69, 76,
77, 78, 84, 85, 88, 129, 141-148,
153, 349, 355, 356, 361, 369, 371,
375, 381
55
xiii, 3, 7, 10, 25, 31, 47, 49, 50, 51,
57, 59, 63, 68, 72, 76, 77, 78, 84,
85, 88, 99, 145-156, 196, 197, 349,
355, 356, 359, 361, 365, 366, 369,
371, 372, 375, 381, 384
38, 39, 351
38, 39, 351
34-35
10, 16, 57, 68, 73, 90, 360, 363, 381
431
-------
SUBJECT INDEX (Continued)
Creosote:
Cultural Pest Control Methods
2,4-D:
Dalapon:
DCPA (Daethai®):
Diazinon:
DDT:
Dichlobenil:
Dichlone:
Dichloropropene:
Dieldrin:
Dimethoate:
xiv, 3, 5, 7, 11, 19, 24, 31, 36, 38,
39, 63, 76, 77, 80, 84, 85, 88, 91,
271-297, 312, 351, 354, 355, 356
113
xiv, 3, 7, 10, 25, 26, 31, 37, 40, 41,
42, 43, 44, 56, 57, 53, 59, 62, 63,
70, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79, 84, 85, 87,
88, 97, 99, 216, 225-231, 350, 355,
356, 360, 362, 368, 369, 370, 371,
374, 375, 378, 380, 385, 386
37, 40, 42, 58, 68, 87, 90, 350, 360,
362, 375, 378, 385
51, 68, 97, 235, 350, 360, 362, 368,
385
xiii, 3, 7, 25, 26, 31, 46, 47, 49, 50,
51, 52, 53, 63, 68, 73, 76, 77, 78,
84, 85, 88, 97, 99, 157-165, 177,
349, 355, 356, 359, 361, 366, 367,
369, 370, 371, 374, 375, 384, 386
6, 10, 14, 48, 57, 59, 68, 95, 96,
97, 99, 102, 197,, 297, 349, 354, 359,
361, 365, 367, 373, 376, 377, 381,
384
56, 68, 362
56, 57, 363
68, 72, 90, 352, 355, 361
10, 49, 50, 57, 97, 99, 153, 196,197
297, 349, 359, 361, 365, 366, 372,
373, 384
49, 52, 68, 349, 359, 361, 367, 375,
377, 384
432
-------
SUBJECT INDEX (Continued)
Pages
Dioxins:
Diquat:
Disulfoton:
318-319
Diuron:
Domestic Supply:
Du-Ter®:
Endothall:
Endrin:
Environmental Impact:
Ethion:
Exports:
Federal Government
Amounts of Pesticides Used
by Agency:
Total:
Federal Working Group on Pest
Management (FWGPM):
56, 57, 68, 360, 368
xiii, 3, 7, 25, 31, 52, 62, 68, 76, 77,
78, 84, 85, 88, 109, 166-172, 349,
354, 355, 356, 361, 362, 367, 375,
377, 384
xiv, 3, 7, 25, 31, 37, 40, 42, 58, 63,
68, 76, 77, 79, 84, 85, 87, 88, 222,
232-237, 244, 350, 355, 356, 362,
378, 382
18-20
See Organotin and Triphenyltin Hydroxide
56, 68, 350, 360, 362, 375
10, 52, 99, 196, 197, 349, 359, 361,
365, 372, 373, 377
91-105, 131-132, 137-140, 145-148,
155-156, 164-165, 171-172, 179-180,
187-188, 192-195, 203-204, 210, 216-
217, 222-224, 229-231, 237, 244-246,
256, 262-263, 269-270, 295-297, 306-
307, 315-319, 326, 332-333, 343-346
52, 69, 97, 349, 359, 361, 367, 384
17-18
72-7'4
64-71, 88
xiii, 64, 71
433
-------
SUBJECT INDEX (Continued)
Pages
Fenac: 56, 69, 360, 362
Flit®MLO: 69, 73, 90, 351
Flour Chrome Arsenate Phenol: 38, 39
Food and Beverage Industry: 45-46
Forestry Uses: 59-62
Fumigants: 45, 320-333
Fungicides: 24, 104-105, 264-270, 298-307
Geographic Regions (explana-
tion of): 123-125
Heptachlor: 10, 50, 52, 57, 68, 99, 129, 153, 196,
197, 349, 359, 361, 365, 366, 369,
370, 371, 373, 384, 386
Herbicides: 24, 102-104, 205-263
Highway,Pesticide Usage on: 83, 86-87
Imports: 16-17
Industrial Pesticide Usage: 33-34
Insect Growth Regulators: 117-118
Insecticides: 24, 100-102, 126-204
Insect Pathogens: 115-116
Institutional Pesticide Usage: 35
Integrated Pest Management: 119-121
Janitorial Supply Services: 53
Krovar®: 37, 42
434
-------
SUBJECT INDEX (Continued)
Pages
Lawn and Tree Services: 51
Lead Arsenate: 10, 16, 50, 69, 361, 373, 385
Lindane: 49, 59, 69, 349, 361, 365, 372, 384
Malathion: xiii, 3, 7, 16, 25, 31, 45, 47, 49, 50,
52, 57, 59, 63, 69, 74, 75, 76, 77,
78, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 97, 99, 162,
173-180, 185, 297, 349, 356, 359, 361,
366, 367, 369, 370, 374, 375, 377,
381, 384, 386
Maneb: xiv, 3,7, 25, 31, 62, 69, 76, 77, 80,
84, 85, 88, 110, 298-307, 351, 355,
356, 360, 363, 368, 375, 381
Methyl Bromide: xiv, 3, 8, 10, 31, 45, 63, 69, 76, 77,
80, 84, 85, 88, 327-333, 352, 355,
356, 359, 361, 373, 381
Methyl Parathion: xiii, 3, 7, 10, 25, 62, 69, 76, 77, 78,
84, 85, 88, 99, 181-188, 349, 354,
355, 356, 359, 361, 367, 373, 376,
377, 381, 383, 384
Mirex: 69, 90, 365, 381
Monuron: 69, 90, 360, 362, 378, 385
MSMA: xiv, 3, 7, 10, 25, 26, 31, 37, 40, 41,
42, 58, 63, 69, 76, 77, 79, 84, 85,
87, 88, 238-246, 350, 355, 356, 360,
362, 378, 382
Municipal Government Pesticide
Usage: 65, 81-83, 84-85
Naled (DibronP): 47, 59, 69, 90, 349, 359, 361, 367,
384
435
-------
SUBJECT INDEX (Continued)
Organotin Compounds:
Paint Industry Pesticide Usage:
Paradichlorobenzene:
Paraquat:
Parathion:
PCNB:
Pentachlorophenol:
Pest Control Operators:
Pesticide Application:
Applicators:
Overuse:
Unnecessary Use:
Pheromones, Attractants,
Repellants:
Physical and Mechanical Pest
Control Methods:
Plictran^:
Predators and Parasites:
Pages
xiv, 3, 8, 11, 63, 76, 77, 84, 85, 88,
334-346, 351, 355, 356
54-55
xiv, 3, 8, 10, 12, 19, 31, 47, 63, 69,
76, 77, 80, 84, 85, 88, 89, 91,
320-326, 352, 354, 355, 356
37, 58, 69, 87, 360, 362, 371, 378
xiii, 3, 7, 10, 25, 26, 52, 62, 69, 76, 77,
78, 84, 85, 88, 97, 99, 102, 109,
187, 189-195, 349, 354, 355, 356,
359, 361, 367, 370, 381, 383, 384
69, 97, 105, 360, 363
xiv, 3, 7, 10, 19, 31, 36, 38, 39, 63,
69, 76, 77, 80, 84, 85, 88, 292, 294,
308-319, 351, 355, 356, 363, 366
46-51
106-108
51-53
109-110
110-111
118
114
See TricyclohexyItin Hydroxide
115
436
-------
SUBJECT INDEX (Continued)
Railroad Pesticide Usage:
Residues - General:
Air:
Aquatic:
Soil:
Resistant Crop Varieties:
Silvex:
Simazine:
Sodium Arsenate:
Sodium Arsenite:
Sodium Chlorate:
Pages
40-41, 42, 291, 294
96-91
100
98-100
97-98
114-115
10, 37, 43, 44, 55, 57, 58, 59, 69,
87, 99, 227, 229, 350, 362, 378, 385
37, 61, 69, 87, 90, 216, 222, 235,
350, 355, 360, 362, 368, 369, 371,
385
16, 361
56, 57, 62, 69, 350, 362, 373
xiv, 3, 7, 10, 16, 31, 69, 74, 76, 77,
79, 84, 85, 88, 247-256, 356, 360,
362, 379, 385
State Government Pesticide Usage: 65, 71-81, 88
Sterilization: 116-117
Stored Grains and Feed;
Sulfur:
Sulfuryl Fluoride:
2,4,5-T:
Tandex® (Karbutylate):
45
16, 19, 24, 69, 91, 351, 359, 363,
368, 381, 385
16, 69, 361, 366
10, 20, 37, 42, 43, 44, 58, 59, 70,
74, 87, 90, 99, 227, 229, 350,
354, 360, 362, 371, 378, 380, 385
37, 42, 87, 362
437
-------
SUBJECT INDEX (Continued)
Tariff Commission:
TCA:
TEPP:
Textile Industry Pesticide
Usage:
TFN (Lamprecide®):
Thimet:
Tordon® (Picloram):
Toxaphene:
Toxicity:
Mammalian:
Nontarget Organisms:
Trichlorfon (Dylox®):
Tricyclohexyltin Hydroxide
(Plictran®):
Pages
4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20,
196, 197
37, 40, 42, 70, 87, 89, 90, 222, 235,
350, 360, 362, 375, 385
102, 160, 361, 367, 373
53-54
90
52, 359
37, 43, 44, 69, 87, 229, 350, 362,
371, 380, 385
xiii, 3, 7, 10, 25, 50, 52, 76, 77, 78,
84, 85, 88, 111, 196-204, 349, 355,
356, 359, 361, 367, 369, 371, 375,
376, 377, 381, 383, 384
91-94, 131, 137, 139, 145, 147, 155,
164, 171, 179, 187, 192, 194, 203,
210, 216, 222, 224, 229, 237, 244-
245, 256, 262, 269, 295-296, 306,
315, 317, 326, 332, 343, 345, 346
95-96, 131, 139, 147, 155, 164, 172,
179, 188, 194, 204, 210, 216, 224,
231, 237, 245, 256, 262, 269, 296-297,
306, 317-318, 326, 332, 344-345
90, 359, 361, 367, 371, 375, 384
25, 31, 334, 337, 338, 343-344
438
-------
SUBJECT INDEX (Concluded)
Trifluralin:
Triphenyltin Hydroxide (Du-Ter*®):
U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Utilities - Pesticide Usage by:
Wasteful Pesticide Usage:
Water Management:
Wood Preservation - Industry:
Plants:
Vorlex®:
Zectran®:
Zineb:
Ziram:
US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1975—21081066
Pages
xiv, 3, 7, 25, 31, 62, 63, 76, 77, 79,
84, 85, 88, 97, 110, 208, 257-263,
355, 356, 360, 362, 368, 369, 370,
371, 374, 375, 378, 382, 385, 386
31, 334, 337, 339, 343, 344, 375
4, 9, 10, 16, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28
41-45, 291
106-112
55-59, 86
36-40, 285, 286-289, 291, 312-314
271-282
70, 90
70, 90, 349, 361, 384
10, 70, 299, 304, 351, 360, 363, 368,
371
10, 70, 351, 360, 363
439
------- |